Public Policy |

Health Insurer/Vendor’s Claims & Appeals Deficiencies Could Trigger Significant Employer Excise Tax Liability

July 27, 2015

Employers sponsoring group health plan coverage now or in 2014, check the adequacy of your insurer or third party administrator’s claims and appeals processes and notices. Employers that sponsor group health plans that violated certain health care reform mandates for claims and appeals imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will face a duty to pay an excise tax of $100 per violation per day under the expanded Form 8928 filing requirements made applicable to employers providing health plan coverage after 2013 under the Internal Revenue Code (Code), as well undermine the enforceability of claims and appeals decisions under Section 502(b) and trigger penalties of $125 per day ($1000 per day in the case of Department of Labor enforcement actions) against the plan administrator under Section 502(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Insurers and third party administrators providing claims and appeals services also should be concerned. Not only could these vendors face liability under ERISA, employer hit with fees almost certainly will look to the vendors responsible for performing these services for indemnification or other relief. Fixing past problems and preventing new violations is key to mitigating risks for all parties.

Because of the potential legal risks under the Code and ERISA, employers evaluating compliance to determine whether to file a Form 8928 generally should consult with legal counsel about whether and how best to structure and conduct the health plan compliance review to preserve distinctions between their business operations and fiduciary activities performed on behalf of the plan, as well as any opportunities to use attorney-client privilege, work product or other evidentiary rules to mitigate their risks and exposures.

Even before ACA, ERISA already required that group health plans and their plan administrators and fiduciary comply with a long list of highly technical rules when processing and administering claims and appeals and notifying plan members about these activities. The ACA claims and appeals rules covered by the Form 8928 filing and excise tax rules are additional notice and procedural safeguards imposed upon group health plans in addition to these long-standing ERISA claims and appeals procedures. As implemented by current Department of Labor Regulations, these ACA claims and appeals procedures require that group health plans (other than grandfathered plans) both comply with:

All of the pre-existing ERISA claims and appeals rules; and
Notify members or their beneficiaries of their rights to and provide for independent review of coverage rescission decisions and medical judgment-based claims denials in accordance with detailed rules set forth in the Labor Department Regulations; and
Comply with tighter procedural and notice standards for processing claim and appeals imposed by ACA in accordance with the detailed rules set forth in the Labor Department Regulations.

While most employers that sponsor group health plans historically have assumed that the insurers or other health plan vendors hired to administer their programs have designed and administer claims and appeals in compliance with these mandates, the processes and notices of many health plan insurers and self-insured plan claims and appeals vendors typically fall far short of meeting the requirements of even the pre-existing ERISA claims and appeals requirements as implemented by Labor Department Regulations since 2001, much less the additional independent review and other ACA claims and appeals requirements.

Post-2013 deficiencies in the practices of many insurers and other health plan vendors’ claims and appeals processes and notifications now leave many employers exposed to significant excise tax penalties. While under ERISA, group health plans and their responsible plan administrator or other applicable named fiduciary, not the sponsoring employer, generally bear the responsibility and liability for administering the group health plan in accordance with ACA’s claims and appeals and the other group health plan requirements covered by Form 8928, the Code’s extension of the Form 8928 filing requirement and imposition of significant excise taxes against employers that sponsor group health plans that violate these requirements is designed to give businesses sponsoring group health plans meaningful incentives to take steps to ensure that their group health plan is properly designed and administered by its insurers and fiduciaries to comply with the listed requirements.

Under Code Section 6039D, businesses sponsoring group health plans are required to self-assess and pay excise taxes of up to $100 per day for each uncorrected violation of a specified list of federal health plan mandates by filing a Form 8928 when the business files its corporate or partnership tax return for the applicable taxable year. Before 2014, the Form 8928 filing requirement applied to a fairly narrow set of requirements. Beginning with 2014, however, ACA added the ACA claims and appeals rules as well as a long list of other ACA requirements to the health plan violations subject to Form 8928 disclosures and excise taxes. If a business sponsored a health plan that violated the ACA claims and appeals rules or any other health plan rule subject to the Form 8928 filing requirement in 2014 or thereafter, the business should take prompt, well-documented actions to self-correct the violation or timely must file the required Form 8929 and pay the applicable $100 per violation per day excise tax since proof of good faith efforts to maintain compliance, proof of self-correction, or both may mitigate these excise tax and other Form 8928 liability as well as associated ERISA exposures. Likewise, during the current and future years after 2013, businesses offering group health plan coverage to their employees also will want to monitor their health plan’s compliance with the federal group health plan rules covered by Form 8929 reporting to avoid or mitigate these risks going forward.

Since federal group health plan violations that trigger the Form 8928 requirement of a sponsoring employer also generally create potential exposures for the ERISA exposures for the group health plan, parties acting as the “plan administrator” or other “fiduciary” role with respect to the plan or both under ERISA, the group health plan and its plan administrator or other responsible fiduciary (sometimes, but not always the employer or a member of its management), the group health plan, and those parties acting as the plan administrator or fiduciary responsible for administering the plan in compliance with those requirements also will want to be prepared to demonstrate that prudent steps are taken to administer the group health plan in accordance with the applicable mandates, including prudently to investigate and redress any suspected concerns identified in connection with the employer’s Form 8928 filing analysis. Under ERISA, for instance, the group health plan’s failure to strictly comply with any one of the highly technical claims or appeals procedural or notification requirements of ACA can give the affected plan member or its assignee the ability to sue the group health plan without the need to fulfill otherwise applicable appeals or other procedures that otherwise might apply under the group health plan’s claims and appeals procedures as well as have other adverse consequences for the group health plan or its fiduciaries, may heightened the burdens of proof the plan or its fiduciaries must meet to sustain denial determinations, or both. In addition, where the ACA violation included a failure to comply with ACA’s claims or appeals notification requirements, the violation also could provide the basis for the plan member to ask a court to order the plan administrator to pay the plan member up to $125 per day per violation plus attorneys’ fees and enforcement costs, the basis for the Department of Labor to penalize the plan administrator up to $1025 per day per violation per plan member, or both. While technically these ERISA exposures generally run specifically to the plan or the party serving as its plan administrator or responsible fiduciary, the employer frequently ultimately pays for these liabilities either because:

The plan documentation names the sponsoring business as the plan administrator or named fiduciary responsible for these actions;
The vendor agreement between the sponsoring business and the insurer or other service provider that the business hired to perform these duties requires the sponsoring business to indemnify the vendor for these liabilities; or
Both.

While the sponsoring business and parties serving as the plan administrator or other fiduciaries of the plan all have potential legal risk if the plan is not administered in accordance with the ACA claims and appeals procedures or other requirements covered by the Form 8928 filing requirements, all parties need to be mindful of the distinctions between the Form 8928 and other exposures that a sponsoring employer bears under the Code as compared to the ERISA fiduciary responsibility and other duties imposed upon the plan and its fiduciaries under ERISA. Maintenance of proper separation between these roles and appropriate structuring of communications between the sponsoring business with the plan and its fiduciaries and vendors is important to minimize the risk that the sponsoring business unintentionally will create or broaden the fiduciary liability exposures of the business by unnecessarily or inappropriately exercising discretion or control over the administration of plan duties that the plan terms allocate to other parties. Also, plan sponsors engaging in compliance reviews and associated discussions generally have a greater ability to use attorney-client privilege and work product than plan fiduciaries. Accordingly, businesses sponsoring their group health plans and their management generally will want to consult with qualified, experienced legal counsel for advice about whether and how to structure their Form 8928 assessments and associated risk analysis and correction discussions to promote and preserve the ability of the business, as the sponsoring employer, and its management to minimize ERISA fiduciary exposures and claim and use attorney-client privilege and work product evidentiary privileges to contain the scope of ERISA associated risks.

Going forward, businesses also will want to obtain advice of counsel about opportunities to mitigate Form 8928, ERISA and other exposures through more careful credentialing and contracting with health plan insurers and vendors, review and drafting of plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other plan materials, and other risk management and compliance processes and procedures. See Careful Selection & Contracting With Vendors Critical Part of Health Plan Renewals.

While most employers will not be able to negotiate the ideal contractual provisions and all operational violations, careful plan drafting to comply with applicable rules, vendor credentialing and contracting, and monitoring of compliance by an employer can reduce the risk and frequencies of violation and promote timely self-correction. In addition, the documented administration of these and other efforts by the employer can provide invaluable evidence to position the sponsoring employer to minimize or secure a waiver of excise taxes that otherwise might arise under the Code, pursue indemnification for liabilities the employer incurs due to the misfeasance of the insurer or vendor or both.

For Help or More Information

For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information

If you need help responding to these new or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, help updating or defending your workforce or employee benefit policies or practices, or other related assistance, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

A practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC, Ms. Stamer’s more than 27 years’ of leading edge work as an practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on HIPAA and other health and other employee benefit, human resources, and related insurance, health care, privacy and data security and tax matters and policy.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 27 plus year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements.

She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, ex-patriate and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. In these and other engagements, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.

In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of experience advising and representing clients on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights for several years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employer and other sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health plans, health insurers, health care providers, banking, technology and other vendors, and others. Beyond advising these and other clients on privacy and data security compliance, risk management, investigations and data breach response and remediation, Ms. Stamer also advises and represents clients on OCR and other HHS, Department of Labor, IRS, FTC, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is the author of numerous highly acclaimed publications, workshops and tools for HIPAA or other compliance including training programs on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to health plans, their sponsors, administrators, insurers and many other business, professional and civic organizations.

Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com, or http://www.stamerchadwicksoefje.com the member of contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile at here.

Comments Off on Health Insurer/Vendor’s Claims & Appeals Deficiencies Could Trigger Significant Employer Excise Tax Liability | 6039D, ACA, Appeals, Attorney-Client Privilege, Claims, Excise Taxes, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Internal Controls, Obamacare | Tagged: 6039D, 8928, ACA, benefits, Claims, compliance, Employer, ERISA, Excise Tax, Form 8927, Health Benefits, Health Claims, Health Plans, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Risk Management, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Prompt Business Action Needed To Mitigate Post-King Employer Health Benefit Costs & Liabilities

June 30, 2015

With the Obama Administration construing the United States Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision as a green light for its full implementation and enforcement of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), U.S. businesses should brace for both increases in health benefit costs and liabilities over the next year as well as take prompt action to identify and mitigate potential excise tax and other exposures from any unaddressed compliance deficiencies in their 2014 or 2015 health plans as soon as possible and no later than the due date for filing their 2014 business tax return.

As health benefit costs continue their upward trend, many businesses and their leaders plan to look for new options to manage costs and liabilities following the King decision. In most cases, businesses assume they can delay these actions until the beginning of their upcoming health plan year, not realizing their company’s potential liability exposures from existing and past defects. Businesses and their leaders who have held off updating their health plan compliance and expect to delay completion of these activities until the beginning of their upcoming health plan year are likely to be in for a rude awakening, however, particularly since a much underappreciated Sarbanes-Oxley style provision of the Internal Revenue Code will require employer or other group health plan sponsors to self-report, self-assess and pay stiff excise tax penalties when filing their company’s 2014 business tax return unless their group health plan complied with a long list of ACA and other federal health plan rules in 2014.

Employer Health Benefit & Other Compensation Up, Costs Exposures Projected To Continue To Rise

While many businesses delayed making tough choices about their health plan design and compliance over the past several years in hopes of some judicial or Congressional relief from the mandates and costs of ACA, businesses generally have continued to struggle with ever-rising compensation and benefit costs, with health benefit costs the biggest challenge. Recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data confirms what business leaders already know. Compensation and benefit costs rose over the past year, with health benefit costs remaining a big factor in these increased costs. According to BLS, employer compensation costs rose slightly and health benefit costs remained the largest individual benefit cost for employers during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2015, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). See BLS Employment Cost Index News Release (April 30, 2015).

The BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation Report, March 2015 released June 10, 2015 Report) shows private employers spent an average of $31.65 per hour worked for compensation in March 2015 with health benefits accounting averaging 7.7 percent of this average employer total compensation cost per employee. This compares to BLS showing that in March 2014, In March 2014, total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $29.99 per hour worked, with wages and salaries averaging $20.96 per hour (69.9 percent) and benefits averaging $9.03 per hour (30.1 percent). See BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation, March 2014 (June 12, 2014)(2014 Report).

BLS data on health benefit and other compensation and benefit costs and trends provides many interesting insights for business as well as government leaders and the role health benefit cost increases play in these increased expenditures. For instance, BLS statistics show for private employers on average during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2015:

Compensation costs for private industry workers increased 2.8 percent over the year, higher than the March 2014 increase of 1.7 percent;
Wages and salaries increased 2.8 percent, also higher than the March 2014 increase of 1.7 percent;
Benefits costs rose 2.6 percent, which was higher than March 2014, when the increase was 1.8 percent; and
Health benefits on average increased 2.5 percent over during the 12-month period that ended on March 31, 2015, rising from the March 2014 increase in compensation costs of 1.8 percent.

Businesses Must Prepare For Impending ACA Enforcement While Dealing With Upsurge In Health Benefit Costs

While the continued rise in the average hourly cost of health benefits for employers is significant in its own right, the reported health benefit cost and employer health cost data in the Report does not include additional reporting and other compliance and risk management costs, which in light of the explosion in employer group health plan mandates since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Research indicates that the employer plan design changes slowed the upward trend in employer health benefit expenditures that otherwise would have occurred in 2015. This upward trend is projected to continue if not accelerate in 2016, however.

The 2015 Report shows these upward increases in employer costs for health benefits and other compensation continued in the first quarter of 2015. Concerning health benefits, for instance, the 2015 Report shows health benefit costs paid by employers averaged $2.43 per hour worked (7.7 percent of total compensation)in private industry in March 2015, compared to the average health benefit costs BLS reported. In comparison, the 2014 Report indicated in March, 2014, the average cost for health insurance benefits in private industry was $2.36 per hour worked in March 2014 (7.9 percent of total compensation).

Overall health benefit costs and associated compliance expenses of employers that elect to continue to offer health benefits for employees are projected to rise throughout 2015 and 2016 as ACA driven mandates and market changes drive up employer’s direct health benefit costs. See, e.g. Employers’ Health Costs Projected to Rise 6.5% for 2016.

The trend data and judicial and political developments indicate that business leaders can look for these trends not only to continue, but accelerate. With an impending responsibility to self-report violations of ACA and various of federal health plan mandates imminent, business leaders should brace to deal with any deficiencies in compliance in their 2014 and 2015 health plans much sooner than they might have expected following the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision last week. President Obama made clear last week he views the King ruling as giving the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor and Department of Health & Human Services the all clear for full implementation and enforcement of ACA and other federal health plan rules. While these overall enforcement exposures will play out over the next several years, many employers are poised to experience the first bite of these new enforcement exposures over the next few months, when the Internal Revenue Code will require that employers that offered health coverage for employees in 2014 self-assess, report and pay stiff new excise tax penalties of $100 per day per violation when filing their 2014 tax return unless their program complied with all of a long list of ACA or other federal law mandates in addition to otherwise applicable exposures under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and other laws. See, Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Decision. Since prompt self-audit and correction can help mitigate these liabilities, business leaders should act quickly to engage experienced legal counsel for their companies for help in evaluating, within the scope of attorney client privilege, the adequacy of their 2014 and 2015 health plan compliance, options for addressing potential exposures from any compliance deficiencies, and for advice and assistance to decide whether to offer health benefits going forward and if so, aid in designing and implementing their future health benefit program to enhance its defensibility. While businesses inevitably will need to involve or coordinate with their accounting, broker, and other vendors involved with the plans, businesses generally will want to get legal advice in a manner that preserves their potential to claim attorney-client privilege to protect against discovery in the event of future enforcement or litigation actions sensitive discussions and analysis about compliance audits, plan design choices, and other risk management and liability planning as well as to get help evaluating potential future plan design changes or proposed solutions to known or suspected liability exposures, particularly in light of complexity of the exposures and risks.

For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information

Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law extensively involved in health and other employee benefit and human resources policy and program design and administration representation and advocacy throughout her career, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC, author, pubic speaker, management policy advocate and industry thought leader with more than 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms.Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health and other employee benefit, human resources and insurance matters and policy.

Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 27 plus year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns.

Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, ex-patriate and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com, or www.stamerchadwicksoefje.com the member of contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com including:

1 Comment | 105(h), ACA, board of directors, compensation, compliance, corporate governance, directors, Employee Benefits, Excise Tax, Health Care Reform, health insurance, Health Plans, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Revenue Code, officers, Tax, third party administrators | Tagged: ACA, business, compensaton, compliance, corporate budgets, corporate liability, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Group Health plans, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, king, King v. Burwell, Management, Obamacare, officers and directors, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Decision

June 25, 2015

With the Supreme Court’s much anticipated June 25, 2015 King v. Burwell decision dashing the hope that the Supreme Court would provide relief for businesses and their group health plans from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates by striking down ACA, U.S. businesses that offered health coverage in 2014 and those continuing to sponsor health coverage currently swiftly to act to review and verify the adequacy of their 2014 and current group health plan’s compliance with ACA and other federal group health plan mandates as well as begin their finalizing their group health plan design decisions for the upcoming year.

King Decision Nixes Hope For Meaningful Judicial Relief For Businesses, Plans For Existing ACA Violations

Prompt action to assess and verify compliance is particularly critical in light of much overlooked the “Sox For Health Plans” style rules of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6039D, which generally require group health plans that violated various federal group health plan mandates to self-identify and self-report these violations, as well as self-assess and pay the excise taxes of up to $100 per day per violation triggered by uncorrected violations. While applicable prior to 2014 for uncorrected violations of a relatively short list of pre-ACA federal group health mandates, ACA broadened the applicability of Code Section 6039D to include ACA’s group health plan mandates beginning in 2014. see SOX FOR HEALTH PLANS? IRS Excise Tax Requirements For Failing to Report Plan Violations Who Must File the IRS Form 8928, Requirement for Self-Reporting? This means that in addition to any other liability that the company, its group health plan and its fiduciaries might bear for violating these rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Code, the Social Security Act or otherwise, the sponsoring business also will incur liability for the Code Section 6039D excise tax for uncorrected violations, as well as late or non-filing penalties and interest that can result from late or non-filing.

Many employers have significant exposure to these Code Section 6039D excise tax liabilities since many plan sponsors or their vendors have delayed reviewing or updating their group health plans for compliance with some or all of ACA’s mandates. In many cases, businesses delayed in hopes that the Supreme Court would strike down the law, Congress would amend or repeal it, or both. In other cases, limited or continuing changes to the regulatory guidance about some of ACA’s mandates prompted businesses to hold off investing in compliance to minimize compliance costs. Regardless of the past reasons for such delays, however, businesses sponsoring group health plans after 2013 need to recognize and act to address their uncorrected post-2013 ACA violations exposures.

While many businesses as well as individual Americans have held off taking long overdue steps to comply with ACA’s mandates pending the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision, the three agencies charged with enforcement of its provision – the IRS, Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Service has been gearing up to enforce those provisions of ACA already in effect and to finalize implementation of others in the expectation of today’s ruling in favor of the Obama Administration. As a practical matter, businesses sponsoring group health plans and other ACA opponents need to recognize that the Supreme Court’s King decision realistically gives these agencies the go ahead to move forward with these plans for aggressive implementation and enforcement.

While technically only addressing a challenge to the Obama Administration’s interpretation of the individual tax credit (“Individual Subsidy”) ACA created under Code Section 36B, the Supreme Court’s decision realistically eliminates any realistic hope for that the Supreme Court will provide businesses or their group health plans with any meaningful past or current ACA violations by striking down the law itself. Of all of the currently pending challenges to ACA working their way to through the courts, the King case presented the best chance of a Supreme Court ruling that would wholesale invalidate ACA’s insurance reforms, if not the law itself, because of the importance of the Individual Subsidy to the intended workings of those reforms. By upholding the Obama Administration’s interpretation of Code Section 36B as allowing otherwise qualifying individuals living in states without a state run ACA health insurance exchange to claim the Individual Subsidy for buying health care coverage through the federal Healthcare.gov health insurance exchange, the Supreme Court effectively killed the best possibility that the Supreme Court would invalidate the insurance reforms or ACA itself. While various challenges to the law or certain of the Obama Administration’s interpretations of its provisions, none of these existing challenges present any significant possibility that the Supreme Court will strike down ACA.

While the Republicans in Congress have promised to take Congressional action to repeal or reform ACA since retaking control of the Senate in last Fall’s elections, meaningful legislative reform also looks unlikely. Its narrow majority in the Senate means that Republicans alone do not have sufficient votes to override President Obama’s promised veto of these efforts. Consequently, prospects for meaningful legislative relief or repeal of ACA’s mandates remain extremely dim even with Republicans holding the majority in both the House and Senate.

Deadline To Self-Report, Pay Excise Tax Penalties For 2014 Health Plan Violations Rapidly Approaching

In light of these developments, businesses must prepare both to meet their current and future ACA and other federal health plan compliance obligations and defend potential deficiencies in their previous compliance over the past several years. The importance of these actions take on particular urgency given the impending deadlines under the largely overlooked “Sox for Health Plans” rules of Code Section 6039D for businesses that sponsored group health plans after 2013.

Under Code Section 6039D, businesses sponsoring group health plans in 2014 must self-assess the adequacy of their group health plan’s compliance with a long list of ACA and other federal mandates in 2014 and to the extent that there exist uncorrected violations, to self-report these violations and self-assess on IRS Form 8928 and pay the required excise tax penalty of $100 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to each individual to whom such failure relates. For ACA violations, the reporting and payment deadline generally is the original due date for the business’ tax return. Absent further regulatory or legislative relief, businesses providing group health plan coverage in 2014 or thereafter also should expect to face similar obligations and exposures. As a result, businesses that sponsored group health plans in 2014 or thereafter should take affirmative steps to act quickly to verify the adequacy of their group health plan’s compliance with all ACA and other group health plan mandates covered by the Code Section 6039D reporting requirements. Prompt action to identify and sel-correct covered violations may mitigate the penalties a company faces under Code Section 6039D as well as other potential liabilities associated with those violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Social Security Act, or other federal laws. On the other hand, failing to act promptly to identify and deal with these requirements and the potential reporting and excise tax penalty self-assessment and payment requirements imposed by Code Section 6039D can significantly increase the liability the business faces for these violations substantially both by triggering additional interest and late payment and filing penalties, as well as forfeiting the potential opportunities that Code Section 6039D otherwise might offer to qualify to reduce or avoid penalties through good faith efforts to comply or self-correct.

While current guidance allows businesses the opportunity to extend the deadline for filing of their Form 8928, the payment deadline for the excise taxes cannot be extended. Code Section 6039D provides opportunities for businesses to reduce their excise tax exposure by self-correction or showing good faith efforts to comply with the ACA and other group health plan mandates covered by Code Section 6039D. Businesses need to recognize, however, that delay in identification and correction of any compliance concerns less likely to qualify for this relief. Accordingly prompt action to audit compliance and address any compliance concerns is advisable to mitigate these risks as well as other exposures.

Other Enforcement & Liability Risks

Beyond the impending Form 8928 excise tax responsibilities, employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators also need to update their health plan compliance and risk management in anticipation of other challenges. Many health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and other vendors and advisors have allowed ongoing challenges and debates about ACA in the Courts, Congress and the media to lull them into delaying investing the money and other resources required to review and update of their programs for compliance with ACA and a host of other federal rules and court decisions impacting their programs and its associated risks. With their impending Form 8928 disclosures providing invaluable admissions of potential exposures and the Obama Administration and plaintiff’s bar likely to take King as a green light to enforce ACA and other group health plan mandates, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators can expect greater scrutiny and challenges of their health plan design and administration by private plaintiffs, the Department of Labor, Department of Health & Human Services, IRS, and in the case of insured arrangements, state insurance regulators. Officers, directors and management leaders of employer or other sponsors of plans facing expenses from delayed or flawed compliance efforts, as well as their health plan insurers, administrative service providers, brokers, consultants, stop los insurers, auditors and other vendors and advisors also should brace for demands and other painful pushback from employers or health plan fiduciaries looking to shift liability to advisors or vendors for costs and damages resulting from claims or other enforcement liabilities resulting from delayed enforcement in alleged reliance upon the advisor or vendor. Strategic actions taken now could help mitigate potential exposures and other fallout of these and other health plan compliance delays.

Liabilities Make Advisable Engaging Legal Counsel For Privilege & Other Risk Management Assistance.

Businesses preparing to conduct audits also are urged to consider seeking the advice from qualified legal counsel experienced in these and other group health plan matters before initiating their audit as well as regarding the evaluation of any concerns that might be uncovered. While businesses inevitably will need to involve or coordinate with their accounting, broker, and other vendors involved with the plans, businesses generally will want to preserve the ability to claim attorney-client privilege to protect all or parts of their audit investigation and analysis and certain other matters against discovery as well as assistance with proper evaluation of options in light of findings and assistance from counsel to document the investigation and carefully craft any corrective actions for defensibility.

For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms.Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health and other employee benefit, human resources and insurance matters and policy. Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, ex-patriate and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.

Ms. Stamer helps management manage.Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 27 plus year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

Comments Off on Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Decision | Affordable Care Act, Brokers, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurance, King V. Burwell, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, King v. Burwell, subsidies | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell Congress to protect wellness programs against EEOC attacks

January 28, 2015

The EEOC has declared war on many employer sponsored wellness programs. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will hold a hearing about how to improve employer wellness programs on Thursday, January 29. Employers and others should urge the Committee and other Congressional leaders to overrule the EEOC’s attacks on wellness programs as illegal disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

1 Comment | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, MEWA, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Privacy, Rehabilitation Act, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Report Pressures EBSA To Finalize ERISA Fiduciary Investment Advice Rule & Repeal or Restrict Small Scope Audit Rule

December 3, 2014

Employee benefit plan sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries and the banks, insurers and other service providers involved in the investment or management of plan assets that currently rely upon existing Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) limited scope audit regulations to avoid the expense and other burdens of conducting full scale audits of certain employee benefit plan assets held by banks, insurers and certain other regulated entities should watch for EBSA proposals to repeal or tighten these regulations in response to recommendations in a new report published by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) . If adopted by the EBSA, plans sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries could expect to incur significant increases in the annual audit expenses of their employee benefit plans, banks, insurers and other organizations currently covered by the small scope audit exception could expect greater scrutiny and expenses when dealing with employee benefit plan accounts, and all of these parties could expect greater fiduciary risk and other compliance obligations.

Repealing or tightening the EBSA limited scope audit regulations and finalizing proposed conflict of interest rules are two key recommendations that OIG urges EBSA to adopt to strengthen its ability to fulfill its mission to protect the security of retirement, health, and other private‐sector employer‐sponsored benefit plans for America’s workers, retirees, and their families in the Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of Labor report (Report) just released by the OIG.

While ERISA generally requires plan asset audits on most employee benefit plan assets, the small scope audit rule of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) currently authorizes so‐called “limited scope audits” for plan assets held in certain banks, insurance companies and certain other qualifying entities under the presumption that these organizations and their actions with respect to the assets are being audited by other entities for other purposes. As a result, the independent public accountants that conduct their audits express “no opinion” on the financial statements of the assets they hold on behalf of plans.

According to the OIG Report, this small scope audit rule inappropriately challenges EBSA’s oversight efforts by allowing as much as $3.3 billion in pension assets held in otherwise regulated entities, such as banks to “escape audit scrutiny.” The Report states, “These limited scope audits weaken assurances to stakeholders and may put retirement plan assets at risk because they provide little or no confirmation regarding the existence or value of plan assets.

In addition to attacking the small scope audit rule, OIG also urges EBSA to finalize its long awaited rules defining prohibited conflicts of interest for parties and individuals providing investment advice to employee benefit plans that EBSA has been working on since 2010. The so‐called “conflict of interest ‐‐ fiduciary investment advice rule” would broaden the definition of investment advice fiduciary for ERISA plans and individual retirement accounts to try to reduce the opportunities for financial conflicts of interest to compromise the impartiality of investment advice in the retirement savings marketplace.

Accordingly, the OIG Report concludes that EBSA should “concentrate on issuing final regulations on the so‐called “conflict of interest rule” and continue its work to obtain legislative changes repealing the limited‐scope audit exemption. In the interim, EBSA should continue to expand upon its existing authority to clarify and strengthen limited scope audit regulations and evaluate the ERISA Council’s recommendations on the issue.”

The OIG recommendations in the Report are likely to refuel pressure on EBSA to finalize the fiduciary investment advice rule and tighten or eliminate the small scope audit rule. Since either or both of these actions would likely increase the expense and other responsibilities and risks associated with the investment and maintenance of employee benefit plan assets, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, banks, insurers, investment advisors and others involved in the investment or administration of employee benefit plans and their assets should both carefully monitor the response of the EBSA to the OIG recommendations and react promptly to provide feedback to help shape any changes to manage these costs and expenses.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

If you need help evaluating or monitoring the implications of these developments or reviewing or updating your health benefit program for compliance or with any other employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls matter, please contact the author of this article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, immediate past-Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPPT Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Arrangements, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plan Committee Vice Chair, former ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, past Southwest Benefits Association Board Member, Employee Benefit News Editorial Advisory Board Member, and a widely published speaker and author, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising businesses, plans, fiduciaries, insurers. plan administrators and other services providers, and governments on health care, retirement, employment, insurance, and tax program design, administration, defense and policy. Nationally and internationally known for her creative and highly pragmatic knowledge and work on health benefit and insurance programs, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes extensive involvement in advising and representing these and other clients on ACA and other health care legislation, regulation, enforcement and administration.

Widely published on health benefit and other related matters, Ms. Stamer’s insights and articles have been published by the HealthLeaders, Modern Health Care, Managed Care Executive, the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News, the Wall Street Journal, the American Bar Association, Aspen Publishers, World At Work, Spencer Publications, SHRM, the International Foundation, Solutions Law Press and many others.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, re-engineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

Comments Off on OIG Report Pressures EBSA To Finalize ERISA Fiduciary Investment Advice Rule & Repeal or Restrict Small Scope Audit Rule | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: audit, conflict of interest, Employee Plans, ERISA, Exempt Organizations, fiduciary investment rule, Fiduciary Responsibility, IRA, IRS, plan audit, Qualification, Retirement Plans, small scope audit, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

TEGE Counsel To Assume Responsibility For Employee Plans, Exempt Orgs & IRA Technical Guidance in 2015

December 3, 2014

The Department of Treasury announced today the transfer of technical responsibility for certain tax related technical issues involving exempt organizations, qualified retirement plans, and individual retirement annuities and accounts (IRAs) to the Office of Chief Counsel. The reassignment of duties scheduled for formal publication in Announcement 2014-34 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-51 on Dec. 15, 2014.will happen as part of a realignment of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE). As a result of the realignment occurring at the beginning of 2015, the technical responsibility for preparing revenue rulings, revenue procedures, and certain other forms of published guidance, and issuing technical advice and certain letter rulings, will shift from TE/GE to the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities) (TEGE Counsel). The annual revenue procedures addressing these matters will be updated in January of 2015 to reflect this realignment.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on TEGE Counsel To Assume Responsibility For Employee Plans, Exempt Orgs & IRA Technical Guidance in 2015 | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Employee Plans, Exempt Organizations, IRA, IRS, Qualification, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Private Exchanges: Employer Health Program Panacea or Problem? Consider Carefully!

November 20, 2014

Employers trying to continue offering affordable health and welfare benefits amid the expanding costs and regulations enacted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) often are encouraged by some consultants and brokers to consider offering coverage options pursuant to a “private exchange” offering employees the options to get reimbursement for individual health coverage from a health reimbursement account (HRA) (collectively the “agencies”) or other choice optand cions.

While these options sound attractive, not all of these options work for all employers. The consumer driven health care and other private exchange lingo used to describe these arrangements often means different things to different people. Some “private exchanges” are little more than high-tech online cafeteria enrollment arrangements. See, e.g. A ‘Cynical’ Look at Private Exchanges Employers need to carefully scrutinize these proposals both for their compliance and other legal risks, affordability and cost, and other suitability.

When considering a private exchange or other arrangement, it is important to understand clearly the proposal, its design, operation, participating vendors, the charges, what is excluded or costs extra, and who is responsible for delivering what. Assuming an employer views the cost and operations merit considering the option, it also needs to carefully evaluate the legal compliance and risks of the arrangements.

The agencies have issued a long stream of guidance cautioning employers about the use of arrangements where the employer provides pre- or after-tax dollars to pay for or reimburse premiums for individual policies, and employers from paying or reimbursing employees for the cost of enrolling in coverage under a public health insurance exchange or both. See, e.g., DOL Technical Release 2013-03; IRS Notice 2013-54; Insurance Standards Bulletin, Application of Affordable Care Act Provisions to Certain Healthcare Arrangement; IRS May 13, 2014 FAQs available here. Most recently, for instance, the new FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (XXII) (FAQ XXII) published by the agencies on November 6, 2014 reiterates previous agency guidance indicating that tax basis for purchasing individual coverage in lieu of group health plan coverage. FAQ XXII, among other things, states

HRAS, health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) and certain other employer and union health care arrangements where the employer promises to reimburse health care costs: are considered group health plans subject to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) § 2711 annual limits, PHS Act § 2713 preventive care with no cost-sharing and other group market reform provisions of PHS Act §§ 2711-2719 and incorporated by reference into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) but
HRA or other premium reimbursement arrangements do not violate these market reform provisions when integrated with a group health plan that complies with such provisions. However, an employer health care arrangement cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms. Consequently, such an arrangement may be subject to penalties, including excise taxes under section 4980D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).

FAQ XXII reaffirms and reinforces this prior guidance, stating “Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments’ prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.”

Another potential arises under the various tax and non-discrimination rules of the Code and other federal laws. For instance, Code sections 105, 125 and other Code provisions prohibitions against discrimination in favor of highly compensated or key employees could arise based on the availability of options or enrollment participation. Historically many have assumed that these concerns could be managed by treating the premiums or value of discriminatory coverage as provided after-tax for highly compensated or key employees. However IRS and Treasury leaders over the past year have made statements in various public meetings suggesting that the IRS does not view this as a solution. Of course, FAQ XXII also highlights the potential risks of underwriting or other practices of offering individual or other coverage in a manner that discriminates against disabled, elderly or other employees protected against federal employment discrimination, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans or other federal employment or related laws.

In addition to confirming that the arrangement itself doesn’t violate specific Code or other requirements, employers and others responsible for structuring these arrangements also should exercise care to critically evaluate and document their analysis that the options offered are suitable. Like other employee benefit arrangements, ERISA generally requires that individual or group products offered by employers, unions or both be prudently selected and managed. Employers sponsoring or considering sponsoring these arrangements should expect that the DOL will expect that each product or benefit option offered be prudently selected in accordance with ERISA’s rules. Compensation arrangements for the brokers and consultants offering these arrangements also should be reviewed for prudence, as well as to ensure that the arrangements don’t violate ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules. Eligibility and other enrollment and related administrative systems and information sharing also should be critically evaluated under ERISA, as well as to manage exposures under the privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance & Portability Act (HIPAA) and other laws.

As a part of this analysis, employers and others contemplating involvement in these arrangements also will want to critically review the vendor contracts and operating systems of the vendors that will participate in the program both for legal compliance, prudence for inclusion, prohibited transactions, and other legal compliance, as well as to ensure that the contract by its terms holds the vendor responsible for delivering on service and other expectations created in the sales pitch. In reviewing the contract, special attention should be given to fiduciary allocations, indemnification and standards of performance, business associate or other privacy and data security assurances required to comply with HIPAA and other confidentiality and data security requirements and the like. As HHS discovered with the rollout of the Healthcare.gov exchange, unctionality also plays a big role in the value proposition justified, the contractual commitments from the vendor also should cover expected operational performance and reliability as well as legal compliance and risk management.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Private Exchanges: Employer Health Program Panacea or Problem? Consider Carefully! | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, out-of-pocket maximum, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Kicks Off Dallas HR 2015 Monthly Lunch Series With 2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update

November 10, 2014

Human resources and other management leaders are watching Washington to see if the change in Congressional control resulting from the November 4, 2014 mid-term election ushers in a more management friendly federal legal environment. Since President Obama took office, the Democrats aggressive pursuit of health care, minimum wage and other federal pro-labor legislation, regulations and enforcement has increased management responsibilities, costs and liabilities.

Nationally recognized management attorney, public policy advisor and advocate, author and lecturer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help human resources and other management leaders prepare for 2015 when she speaks on “2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update: What HR & Benefit Leaders Should Expect & Do Now” at the 2015 Dallas HR monthly luncheon series kickoff meeting on January 13, 2014.

About The Program

While November 4, 2014 Republican election victories gave Republicans a narrow majority in both the House and Senate when the new Congress takes office January 3, 2015, the new Republican Majority may face significant challenges delivering on their promises to move quickly to enact more business-friendly health care, guest worker, tax and other key reforms Republicans say will boost the employment and the economy.

While President Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders say they plan to work with the new majority, President Obama already is threatening to use vetoes, regulations and executive orders to block Republicans from obstructing or rolling back his pro-labor policy and enforcement agenda. When the new Congress takes office, the narrowness of the Republican Majority in the Senate means Republicans can’t block a Democratic filibuster or override a Presidential veto without recruiting some Democratic support.

As the Democrats and Republicans head into battle again, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney and public policy advocate Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help human resources and other management leaders get oriented for the year ahead by sharing her insights and predictions on the legislative, regulatory and enforcement agendas that HR, benefit and other business leaders need to plan for and watch in 2015. Among other things, Ms. Stamer will:

Discuss how management can benefit from monitoring and working to influence potential legislative, regulatory and enforcement developments when planning and administering HR and related workforce policies;
Discuss the key workforce and other legislative, regulatory and enforcement priorities and proposals Democrats and Republicans plan to pursue during 2015;
Share her insights and predictions about how the narrow Republican majority, Mr. Obama’s lame duck presidency and other factors could impact each Party’s ability to pursue its agenda
Share tips management leaders can use to help monitor developments and to help shape legislation, regulation and enforcement through Dallas HR, SHRM and other organizations as well as individually;
Learn tips for anticipating and maintaining flexibility to respond to legislative, regulatory and enforcement developments; and
More

To register or get more details about the program, DallasHR, or both, see http://www.dallashr.org.

About Ms. Stamer

Board certified labor and employment attorney, public policy leader, author, speaker Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized and valued for her more than 25 years of work advising and representing employers, insurers, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and advisors, business and community leaders and governments about workforce, employee benefits, social security and pension, health and insurance, immigration and other performance and risk management, public policy and related regulatory and public policy, management and other operational concerns.

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer continuously both has helped businesses and their management to monitor and respond to federal and state legislative, regulatory and enforcement concerns and to anticipate and shape federal, state and other laws, regulations, and enforcement in the United States and internationally.

Well known for her leadership on workforce, health and pension policy through her extensive work with clients as well as through her high profile involvements as the Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board member of the Alliance for Health Care Excellence, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Association (ABA), and the State Bar of Texas leadership and other involvements with the ABA including her annual service leading the annual agency meeting of Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) representatives with the HHS Office of Civil Rights and participation in other JCEB agency meetings, past involvements with legislative affairs for the Texas Association of Business and Dallas HR and others, and many speeches, publications, and other educational outreach efforts, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with Congress and federal and state regulators on the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, immigration, tax and other workforce-related legislative and regulatory reforms for more than 30 years. One of the primary drafters of the Bolivian Social Security reform law and a highly involved leader on U.S. workforce, benefits, immigration and health care policy reform, Ms. Stamer’s experience also includes working with U.S. and foreign government, trade association, private business and other organizations to help reform other countries’ and U.S. workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Ms. Stamer also contributes her policy, regulatory and other leadership to many professional and civic organizations including as Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, a Substantive Groups & Committee Member; a member of the leadership council of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; the current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, and the past Coordinator of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division.

The publisher and editor of Solutions Law Press, Inc. who serves on the Editorial Advisory Boards of Employee Benefit News, HR.com, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other publications, Ms. Stamer also is a prolific and highly respected author and speaker, National Public Radio, CBS, NBC, and other national and regional news organization, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs, HealthLeaders, Telemundo, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News, the Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, CEO Magazine, CFO Magazine, CIO Magazine, the Houston Business Journal, and many other prominent news and publications. She also serves as a planning faculty member and regularly conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns for these and a diverse range of other organizations. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Stamer Kicks Off Dallas HR 2015 Monthly Lunch Series With 2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update | 105(h), ACA, ADA, Affirmative Action, Affordable Care Act, Bankruptcy, Cafeteria Plans, Child Labor, CHIP, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation transparency, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, Employment Tax, ERISA, ESOP, Excise Tax, Executive Compensation, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Military Leave, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, OSHA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Premium Subsidies, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Public Policy, Rehabilitation Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retaliation, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Safety, Sexual Harassment, Tax, Tax Credit, Telecommuting, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, out-of-pocket maximum, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Guidance Raises Concerns For Many Employers Offering “Skinny” & Other Limited Coverage Health Plans

November 4, 2014

Learn More Details By Participating In November 13, 2014 WebEx Briefing

Employers of 100 or more full-time employees that plan currently offering or planning to offer after November 4, 2014 health plans with mandate only or other “skinny” plan designs which do not provide “substantial coverage” for both in-patient hospitalization and physician services should re-evaluate the implications of their proposed plan design as well as existing and planned employee enrollment or other communications about those plans, in light of the new guidance provided by Notice 2014-69 released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today. Learn all the details about this new guidance and its implication by participating in our November 13 , 2014 briefing.

Plans Must Provide “Substantial Coverage” for Both In-Patient Hospitalization & Physician Services To Provide Minimum Value

Notice 2014-69 makes it official that the Department of Treasury (including the IRS) and Department of Health and Human Services (collectively the Departments) believe that group health plans that fail to provide substantial coverage for in-patient hospitalization services or for physician services (or for both) (referred to in the Notice as Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans) do not provide the “minimum value” necessary to fulfill the minimum value requirements of Code §36B and 4080H(b).

The Notice also notifies sponsoring employers about the Departments expectations about notifications and other communications to employees about Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans) as well as shares details about the Departments plans for implementing their interpretation in planned final regulations by March, 2015.

Standards On Employer Communications About Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans

The Notice cautions employers about the need to use care in communicating with employees about Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan. Among other things, the Notice states that an employer that offers a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan (including a Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan) to an employee must:

Not state or imply in any disclosure that the offer of coverage under the Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan precludes an employee from obtaining a premium tax credit, if otherwise eligible, and
Timely correct any prior disclosures that stated or implied that the offer of the Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan would preclude an otherwise tax-credit-eligible employee from obtaining a premium tax credit.
Without such a corrective disclosure, the Notice warns that a statement (for example, in a summary of benefits and coverage) that a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan provides minimum value will be considered to imply that the offer of such a plan precludes employees from obtaining a premium tax credit. However, an employer that also offers an employee another plan that is not a Non-Hospital/Non/-Physician Services Plan and that is affordable and provides minimum value (MV) is permitted to advise the employee that the offer of this other plan will or may preclude the employee from obtaining a premium tax credit.

Anticipated Approach In Planned Regulations

Regarding the Departments plans to adopt regulations implementing the interpretation of Code § 36B announced in the Notice, the Notice indicates:

HHS intends to promptly propose amending 45 CFR 156.145 to provide that a health plan will not provide minimum value if it excludes substantial coverage for in-patient hospitalization services or physician services (or both).
Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations that apply these proposed HHS regulations under Code section 36B. Accordingly, under the HHS and Treasury regulations, an employer will not be permitted to use the MV Calculator (or any actuarial certification or valuation) to demonstrate that a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan provides minimum value.
Treasury and IRS anticipate that the proposed changes to regulations will be finalized in 2015 and will apply to plans other than Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans on the date they become final rather than being delayed to the end of 2015 or the end of the 2015 plan year. As a result, a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan (other than a Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan) should not be adopted for the 2015 plan year.
Solely in the case of an employer that has entered into a binding written commitment to adopt, or has begun enrolling employees in, a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan prior to November 4, 2014 based on the employer’s reliance on the results of use of the MV Calculator (a Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan), however, Notice 2014-69 states the Departments anticipate that final regulations, when issued, will not be applicable for purposes of Code section 4980H with respect to the plan before the end of the plan year (as in effect under the terms of the plan on November 3, 2014) if that plan year begins no later than March 1, 2015.
Employers offering Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans should “exercise caution in relying on the Minimum Value Calculator to demonstrate that these plans provide minimum value for any portion of a taxable year after publication of the planned final regulations.
The IRS will not require an employee to treat a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan as providing minimum value for purposes of an employee’s eligibility for a premium tax credit under Code section 36B, regardless of whether the plan is a Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan before final regulations take effect.

Employers & Plans Most Likely To Be Affected

The interpretation of minimum value and planned future regulatory changes announced in Notice 2014-69 primarily will impact large employers subject to the “pay or play” shared responsibility rules of Code § 4980H that offer a health plan providing coverage that meets the “minimum essential coverage” standards of Code § 4980H.

Under Code § 4980H(a), large employers that fail to offer employee and dependent coverage under a health plan providing “minimum essential coverage” to each full-time employee generally become liable to pay an employer shared responsibility payment of $165 per month ($2000 per year) (commonly referred to as the “A Penalty”) for each full-time employee.

In contrast, the penalties (commonly referred to as the “B Penalty”) created under Code § 4980H(b) generally comes into play when a covered large employer offers health plan coverage under a health plan providing minimum essential coverage but the plan either:

Does not provide minimum value; or
The cost to the employee for coverage exceeds 9.5% of the employee’s family adjusted gross income or an otherwise applicable safe harbor amount allowed under IRS regulations.Register For Briefing To Learn More
To learn more about Notice 2014-69 and its implications on employer health plan obligations and Code § 4980H shared responsibility exposures, register to participate in a special Solutions Law WebEx Briefing on the new guidance conducted by Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer on Thursday, November 13, 2014 from Noon to 1:00 p.m. Central Time here.
Assuming at least one full-time employee of a covered large employer receives a subsidy for enrolling in health coverage through a health care exchange or “Marketplace” established under ACA, the B Penalty generally is equal to $250 per month ($3000 per year) multiplied by the number of such subsidized employees of the employer.

Learn More By Joining November 13, 2014 Solutions Law Press, Inc. Virtual Briefing Register Now!

To learn more about Notice 2014-69 and its implications on employer health plan obligations and Code § 4980H shared responsibility exposures, register to participate in a special Solutions Law WebEx Briefing on the new guidance conducted by Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer on Thursday, November 13, 2014 from Noon to 1:00 p.m. Central Time here.

During the briefing, Ms. Stamer will:

Explain what health benefits, if any, employers must offer employees under current ACA guidance
Brief participants on this new guidance and other related guidance
Discuss potential implications for employers and their health plans
Discuss potential options for employers dealing with these plans and
Take questions from virtual audience participants as time permits.

Registration Fee is $35.00 per person Registration required for each virtual participant. Payment required via website registration in advance of the program.. Payment only accepted via website PayPal. No checks or cash accepted. Participation is limited and available on a first come, first serve basis. Persons not registered at least 24 hours in advance not guaranteed to receive access information or materials prior to commencement of the briefing.

This briefing will be conducted via WebEx over the internet. Participants may have the opportunity to participate via telephone, provided that participants electing to participate may incur added charges for telephone connectivity. Solutions Law Press, Inc. is not responsible for any power or system failures. Solutions Law Press, Inc. also expects to offer the opportunity for individuals unable to participate in the live briefing to listen to a recording of the briefing beginning approximately one week after the program via the Internet by registering, paying the required registration fee and following listening instructions received in response to such registration.

Interested persons can register here now!

About The Speaker

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, attorney and health benefit consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters. A well-known and prolific author and popular speaker Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Insurance Thought Leadership,com and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications. With extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, as well as state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance and labor departments, and other agencies and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training and serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. See http://www.CynthiaStamer.com for more details.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, attorney and health benefit consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has 25 plus years’ experience advising and representing private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters. A well-known and prolific author and popular speaker Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Insurance Thought Leadership,com and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications. With extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, as well as state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance and labor departments, and other agencies and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training and serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. See http://www.CynthiaStamer.com. for more details.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know when you register so that we may consider your request. ©2014 Solutions Law Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on IRS Guidance Raises Concerns For Many Employers Offering “Skinny” & Other Limited Coverage Health Plans | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Disability, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, MEWA, Tax, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, ADA, Affordable Care Act, employer shared responsibility, GINA, HIPAA, HIPAA Portability, HIPAA Privacy, minimum value, MV, Pay or Play, Skinny Plans, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New EEOC Lawsuit Challenges Orion Energy Systems Employee Benefit Program Under ADA

September 19, 2014

Employers using or considering using health risk assessments or other wellness programs should carefully monitor a new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit, EEOC v. Orion Energy Systems, Civil Action 1:14-cv-01019 (E.D.Wis.), which is the first time the EEOC has sued an employer under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) based on the employer’s wellness program.

Although the alleged facts in Orion reflect its practices might be much more aggressive than in common use by most employers, the principles argued by the EEOC in Orion raise potential concerns for the growing number of employers relying on health risk assessment and other wellness programs to help manage health benefit costs, employee disabilities, and other concerns.

According the Kaiser Family Foundation, health risk assessments and other wellness program use is increasingly common. The majority of employers reportedly now offer some sort of wellness program — 94 percent of employers with over 200 workers, and 63 percent of smaller ones.

Employers that use these arrangements generally believe their health risk assessment or other wellness benefit passes legal muster as long as it complies with standards established in final regulations amending the nondiscrimination requirements of the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPAA). The sponsors of these arrangements often are unaware of or discount the likelihood that the EEOC might view these and other wellness benefit arrangements as violating the ADA prohibitions against medical inquiries that are not both job related and necessary to the job or other ADA disability discrimination prohibitions.

In Orion, the EEOC contends that Orion instituted a wellness program that required medical examinations and made disability-related inquiries. When employee Wendy Schobert declined to participate in the program, Orion shifted responsibility for payment of the entire premium for her employee health benefits from Orion to Schobert. Shortly thereafter, Orion fired Schobert.

The EEOC charges Orion violated federal law by requiring an employee to submit to medical exams and inquiries that were not job-related and consistent with business necessity as part of a so-called “wellness program,” which the EEOC charges was not voluntary, and then by firing the employee when she objected to the program.

The EEOC maintains that Orion’s wellness program violated the ADA as applied to Schobert. Additionally, EEOC also charges Orion wrongfully retaliated against Schobert because of her good-faith objections to the wellness program. The EEOC further asserts that Orion interfered with Schobert’s exercise of her federally protected right to not be subjected to unlawful medical exams and disability-related inquiries.

“Employers certainly may have voluntary wellness programs — there’s no dispute about that — and many see such programs as a positive development,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC Chicago district. “But they have to actually be voluntary. They can’t compel participation by imposing enormous penalties such as shifting 100 percent of the premium cost for health benefits onto the back of the employee or by just firing the employee who chooses not to participate. Having to choose between responding to medical exams and inquiries — which are not job-related — in a wellness program, on the one hand, or being fired, on the other hand, is no choice at all.”

The Orion litigation reminds businesses of the advisability or properly designing and managing wellness programs to comply with applicable legal requirements.

Financial or other incentive and reward programs of course must be designed to comply with HIPAA’s nondiscrimination rules, the ADA and privacy rules. Privacy requirements also can be a challenge under these laws unless information collected from screening and other wellness and disease management activities is carefully collected, routed and handled to comply with HIPAA, GINA and other privacy rules. See, e.g, EBSA Issues Guidance on Health PLan Wellness & Disease Management Programs Subject to HIPAA Nondiscrimination Rules; ADAAA Amendment Broader “Disability Definition Not Retroactive, Employer Action Needed To Manage Post 1/1/2009 Risks; Businesses Face Rising Disability Discrimination Enforcement Risks; EEOC Finalizes Updates To Disability Regulations In Response to ADA Amendments Act.

Employers and health plans also should review the existing preventive care coverage provided in their health plans to ensure compliance with expanded federal mandates enacted as part of the sweeping new federal health care reform law. See e.g., Affordable Care To Require Health Plans Cover Contraception & Other Women’s Health Procedures.

If you need assistance addressing the legal requirements of your wellness program or other workforce, employee benefit, compensation or risk management concern, contact the author of this update. We also encourage you and others to help develop real meaningful improvements by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources. TheCoalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.You also can access information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

If you need help reviewing or updating your health benefit program for compliance with ACA or other laws or with any other employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls matter, please contact the author of this article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A 2011 inductee to the American College of Employee Benefits Council, immediate past-Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPPT Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Arrangements, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plan Committee Vice Chair, former ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, past Southwest Benefits Association Board Member, Employee Benefit News Editorial Advisory Board Member, and a widely published speaker and author, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising businesses, plans, fiduciaries, insurers. plan administrators and other services providers, and governments on health care, retirement, employment, insurance, and tax program design, administration, defense and policy. Nationally and internationally known for her creative and highly pragmatic knowledge and work on health benefit and insurance programs, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes extensive involvement in advising and representing these and other clients on ACA and other health care legislation, regulation, enforcement and administration.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

About Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Its Coalition on Responsible Health Policy

Sharing and promoting the use of practical practices, tools, information and ideas that patients and their families, health care providers, employers, health plans, communities and policymakers can share and offer to help patients, their families and others in their care communities to understand and work together to better help the patients, their family and their professional and private care community plan for and manage these needs is the purpose of Project COPE.

The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Speak up, step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can do so by extending yourself a little bit. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key.

The outcome of this latest health care reform push is only a small part of a continuing process. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act makes financing care better or worse, the same challenges exist. The real meaning of the enacted reforms will be determined largely by the shaping and implementation of regulations and enforcement actions which generally are conducted outside the public eye. Americans individually and collectively clearly should monitor and continue to provide input through this critical time to help shape constructive rather than obstructive policy. Regardless of how the policy ultimately evolves, however, Americans, American businesses, and American communities still will need to roll up their sleeves and work to deal with the realities of dealing with ill, aging and disabled people and their families. While the reimbursement and coverage map will change and new government mandates will confine providers, payers and patients, the practical needs and challenges of patients and families will be the same and confusion about the new configuration will create new challenges as patients, providers and payers work through the changes.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on New EEOC Lawsuit Challenges Orion Energy Systems Employee Benefit Program Under ADA | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Talks About “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other “Family” Matters in Post-DOMA World” at SPBA 2014 Spring Meeting

April 8, 2014

Health plans, their sponsoring employers and administrators face new challenges and responsibilities under a slew of regulations on the treatment of same-sex domestic partners issued by the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor and other federal government agencies since the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Defense Against Marriage Act’s prohibition against the recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriage for purposes of federal law.

Attorney and industry thought leader Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will join officials from the Internal Revenue Service National Office in discussing “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other ‘Family’ Matters in Post-DOMA World” on Thursday, April 17, 2014 at the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators (SPBA) Spring 2014 Meeting at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC.

The SPBA Spring Meeting scheduled to take place May 16-18 will cover a broad range of timely topics on health care reform and other issues and concerns for self-insured health plan administrators and their clients.

In addition to her April 17 DOMA presentation, Ms. Stamer also is scheduled to share her insights and experiences financial, ethical and legal concerns that third party administrators of self-insured employee benefit plans should consider when their client stops funding the plan due to illiquidity, bankruptcy or otherwise as a panelist on the April 18, 2014 panel on “Action Steps When a Client Stops Funding Claims.”

For additional details about the SPBA or its Spring Meeting, see www.spbatpa.org.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help labor and employment, health and other employee benefit, compensation, privacy and data other internal controls and management concerns, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience with health matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and run legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising these and other clients about these matters and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigration & Customs, Justice, and Health & Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, state labor, insurance, tax and attorneys’ general, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on health and other employee benefit, labor, employment and other human resources, worker classification, tax, internal controls, risk management and other legal and operational management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations who is published and speaks extensively on worker classification and related matters. She is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, find out about upcoming training or other events, review some of her past training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer at www.CynthiaStamer.com.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at www.solutionslawpress.com including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. ©2014 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Stamer Talks About “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other “Family” Matters in Post-DOMA World” at SPBA 2014 Spring Meeting | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Bankruptcy, defense of marriage act, distressed plans, DOMA, Employee Benefits, Employers, expatriate plans, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, International, same-sex, tpa, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks On “Action Steps When A Client Stops Funding Claims” at 2014 SPBA Spring Meeting

April 8, 2014

Health plans and their administrators face significant practical legal and operational challenges when the employer sponsoring the plan goes bankruptcy, has financial trouble or otherwise stops funding the plan.

Attorney, industry thought leader and Solutions Law Press, Inc. Publisher and Editor, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will join a panel of distinguished attorneys discussing financial, ethical and legal concerns that third party administrators of self-insured employee benefit plans should consider when their client stops funding the plan due to illiquidity, bankruptcy or otherwise as a panelist on the April 18, 2014 panel on “Action Steps When a Client Stops Funding Claims” on Friday, April 18, 2014 at the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators (SPBA) Spring 2014 Meeting at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC.

In addition to her April 18 presentation, Ms. Stamer also is scheduled to join officials from the Internal Revenue Service National Office in discussing “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other ‘Family’ Matters in Post-DOMA World” on Thursday, April 17, 2014.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at www.solutionslawpress.com including:

Comments Off on Stamer Speaks On “Action Steps When A Client Stops Funding Claims” at 2014 SPBA Spring Meeting | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Bankruptcy, distressed plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, expatriate plans, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, International | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Gives Ex Pat Plans Limited Exemption From ACA Reporting Rule

April 3, 2014

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is giving U.S. businesses with workers working oversees (expatriates) additional limited temporary relief from certain mandates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). While this relief will be welcome for many multinational employers, these employers and their health plans and insurers need to use caution not to overestimate this relief. Employers and administrators of health plans covering expatriates generally generally remain obligated by U.S. law to design and administer their group health plans to properly comply with applicable U.S. mandates and tax rules..

The temporary relief for employers and health plans covering expatriate announced by the IRS today (April 3, 2014) scheduled to be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-16 on April 14, 2014, Notice 2014-24, provides a temporary safe harbor for an entity that reports expatriate health insurance plans on its Supplemental Health Care Exhibit (SHCE). For the 2014 and 2015 fee years, Notice 2014-24 will allow such an entity to exclude 50% of its direct premiums written for expatriate plans in reporting total direct premiums written to the IRS for purposes of determining its ACA § 9010 Health Insurance Providers Fee.

This new guidance supplements guidance previously published guidance in“FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XIII)”(the “Expat FAQ”). The Expat FAQ states these health plans generally are not required to comply with the ACA requirements for pre-January 1, 2016 plan years, as long as they comply with the applicable federal health plan mandates of pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act and other applicable law under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) under temporary transitional relief announced in the Expat FAQ jointly announced by the Agencies of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the IRS (collectively, the Agencies) on March 8, 2013. The Expat FAQ makes clear that the Agencies generally view expatriate health plans and other health benefit coverage provided by businesses subject to U.S. law for employees working outside their home country generally are subject to the mandates of ACA, as well as other federal health plan mandates. However, ERISA section 4(b)(4) may exempt from ERISA coverage “plans maintained outside the United States primarily for the benefit of persons substantially all of whom are nonresident aliens.” Similar exemptions also may be available for certain provisions of the Code or ERISA for these extra-territorial plans for nonresident aliens. For instance, for purposes of the eligibility non-discrimination rule of Code section 105(h), the Code specifies that an employer can disregard employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d)92) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States within the meaning of section 861(a)(3).

While the Agencies gather further information and analyze the potential challenges expatriate plans may face in complying with the Affordable Care Act, the Expat FAQ states that for plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2015, the Agencies will treat expatriate health plans as treating the requirements of subtitles A and C of Title I of the Affordable Care Act if the plan and issuer comply with the pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the PHS Act, section 715 of ERISA, and section 9815 of the Code and other applicable law under ERISA and the Code including, for example, the mental health parity provisions, the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions, the ERISA section 503 requirements for claims procedures, and any reporting and disclosure obligations under ERISA Part 1.

The Expat FAQ also confirms that the Agencies will treat coverage provided under an expatriate group health plan as a form of minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Code. If an individual has minimum essential coverage, the individual will not be subject to the “Individual Mandate” tax. Additionally, an employee who is offered “minimum essential coverage” by his/her employer will not be eligible for a subsidy in the Exchange if the employer coverage is “affordable” and provides “minimum value.” This means the employer will not be subject to a potential penalty under the ACA “Employer Shared Responsibility” provisions of new Code section 4980H.

Employers also should be careful to ensure that the guidance applies to their program. Sponsors and insurers providing or administering health benefits with respect to employees working or living outside the United States are cautioned of the need to confirm that their program falls under the Expat FAQ’s definition of “expatriate health plan.” For purposes of this temporary transitional relief, the Expat FAQ defines an “expatriate health plan” as “an insured group health plan with respect to which enrollment is limited to primary insureds who reside outside of their home country for at least six months of the plan year and any covered dependents, and its associated group health insurance coverage.” The Expat FAQ confirms its definition of “expatriate health coverage” also applies for purposes of the Health Insurer Issuer Standards Related to Transitional Reinsurance Program of 45 CFR 153.400(a)(1)(iii) for plans with plan years ending on or before December 31, 2015.

This definition of expatriate health plan will not extend to all health coverage provided for employees of U.S. companies working outside the United States. Employers and administrators of self-insured health plans providing coverage for expatriate employees take note, however. Because this definition presently is limited to “insured group health plans,” it self-insured health coverage provided for expatriate employees presently do not qualify as expatriate health plans covered by the relief contained in the Expat FAQ. Likewise, the definition also does not apply to health coverage provided for employees working abroad for periods of less than six months. Sponsors, insurers and administrators of health plans providing coverage for employees of U.S. employer working outside their home countries that fall outside the Expat FAQ definition of an “expatriate health plan” should ensure that their programs timely comply with all applicable federal health plan mandates including ACA.

Review and Update Plans To Manage Risks & Improve Effectiveness

Businesses providing health coverage to workers working outside of the United States should review their policies for compliance with the applicable requirements of the Affordable Care Act, to the extent applicable taking into account the Expat FAQ, as well as otherwise applicable requirements of ERISA, the Code, the PHS Act and other relevant federal laws. When conducting this review, sponsors, administrators and insurers also should consider opportunities to manage risks, improve plan value and cost effectiveness and mitigate other legal or operational concerns.

Health coverage provided to employees of U.S. businesses working outside the United States typically are provided under policies, plans and programs pursuant to products or other arrangements that may not be designed, documented or administered to adequately comply with relevant federal health plan mandates. Beyond minimizing legal exposures that may result from overlooked compliance obligations, employer or other sponsors, administrators and insurers of these programs generally should familiarize themselves about the health care delivery systems, private and public health benefit programs, regulations and other relevant requirements and circumstances that may impact their business’ obligations to provide or contribute toward the cost of health care coverage, access to quality care by their employees and their families while working outside the United States or their home country, and legal and operational issues that may arise when employees are working oversees, transitioning between countries, have family members residing in different countries or other special circumstances.

The Expat FAQ is only one of a deluge of new guidance recently finalized or proposed by the Agencies. With the effective date of the 2014 Affordable Care Act reforms rapidly approaching, more guidance is impending. Stay tuned for additional updates about Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules and guidance.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at www.solutionslawpress.com including:

Comments Off on IRS Gives Ex Pat Plans Limited Exemption From ACA Reporting Rule | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Employee Benefits, Employers, expatriate plans, Health Plans, International | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Statistics, OSHA Lawsuit Against AT&T Operator & Other DOL Action Highlights Rising Retaliation Exposures

February 10, 2014

A new Department of Labor (DOL) lawsuit filed in Cleveland against The Ohio Bell Telephone Company and other DOL enforcement news released today remind U.S. businesses again of the growing need to recognize and manage exposure to retaliation claims when dealing with workers who have reported injuries or other Occupational Health & Safety Act of 1974 (OSHA Laws), discrimination, wage and hour or other federal laws that include anti-retaliation or whistleblower protections.

AT&T Operator Sued Under OSHA

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, the In the Matter of: Perez v. The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-269 lawsuit charges The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, which operates as AT&T, violated the whistleblower provisions of the OSHA Laws. The complaint alleges that in 13 separate incidents, 13 employees of AT&T were disciplined and given one- to three-day unpaid suspensions for reporting injuries that occurred on the job.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of 22 statutes protecting employees who report violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, motor vehicle safety, health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad, maritime and securities laws. These whistleblower provisions generally prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who raise concerns or provide information to their employer or the government under any of these laws.

The lawsuit illustrates the difficulty that U.S. employers increasingly face when dealing with workers who have filed complaints or participated in other protected activity under the OSHA Laws or other laws with whistleblower or anti-retaliation provisions. OSHA claims that the employer wrongfully retaliated against 13 Ohio employees who received unpaid suspensions after reporting work place injuries from 2011 to 2013. However, the company claims that the suspensions were appropriate disciple against the impacted employees for his or her violation of a workplace safety standard.

Assuming that the lawsuit proceeds without settlement, the company can expect to face expensive and lengthy litigation to determine whose perspective wins. Even if the company succeeds in winning the lawsuit, the expenses and other costs of the litigation will render any victory a financial loss.

Wage & Hour Retaliation

Along with the AT&T Operator OSHA action, DOL also is acting to enforce retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other laws enforced by its Wage and Hour Division as well as its other agencies. The Wage and Hour Division makes investigation and enforcement against employers that retaliate against workers for exercising rights protected under the FLSA or other wage and hour laws a priority. One example of this commitment to this priority is the brief the Labor Department filed in Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Administrative Review Board, where a key issue is whether substantial evidence supports the determination of the Administrative Law Judge, as as affirmed by the Administrative Review Board, that protected activity was a contributing factor in Lockheed’s constructive discharge of an employee.

Retaliation Exposure Wide-Reaching and Growing

While OSHA and the Wage and Hour Division zealously enforce the anti-retaliation provisions of the laws subject to their jurisdiction, these laws and agencies are only the tip of the iceberg. Most federal and many state labor and employment as well as a broad range of other laws include anti-relation provisions that protect workers who report potential misconduct, participate in investigaitons or engagement in other protected activity.

U.S. Government statistics show that U.S. business risk from retaliation or other whistleblower claims is significant and rising. Official statistics reported by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) here show a steady rise in retaliation based charges.

Businesses or their leaders found guilty of retaliation often face significant liability. When anti-retaliation laws are enforced by the Department of Labor or other agencies, businesses generally can expect to incur both restitution and correction costs as well as administrative or civil penalties. Increasingly, employees or others reporting the claims to the agencies may receive a portion of the recovered amounts under qui tam or other similar statutes.

Damages awarded to private plaintiffs who win retaliation lawsuits also tend to be quite costly. They typically include actual damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement as well as punitive damages. In addition to the exposures that businesses face when found guilty of illegal retaliation, many of these statutes also may impose personal liability against management or others who engage in or condone this activity. Defending these claims often proves particularly challenging because of the heavy burdens of proof that a business ormanagement official often faces when an employee or other protected party shows detriment after engaging in protected actions.

Risk Management Needed

In the face of this growing risks, businesses should recognize and take steps to monitor and manage their exposure to retaliation or other whistleblower claims. While an imperfect panacea to the rising risks of retaliation claims and liabilities, examples of some of the steps businesses generally will want to use to prevent and mitigate etaliation exposures include:

Establish and clearly communicate by word and deed that the Company prohibits retaliation. The policy should make clear retaliation is against company policy and communicate the steps that employees concerned that they are being retaliated against should take to report suspected retailiation.
Train management and other workers on the retaliation policy and hold employees that engage in illegal retailiation or other prohibited conduct through appropriate discipline.
Communicate promptly with persons reporting suspected retaliation, acknowledging the receipt of the report and that the company takes the report seriously and will investigate. At the same time, tell the whistleblower that the company does not tolerate retaliation and what to do if the whistleblower suspects retaliation.
Keep complaints confidential to reduce the risk of retaliation.
Document the report and the investigation. When possible, ask the whistleblower and other witnesses provide written statements.
Avoid forming, and teach management and others conducting or participating in the investigation to avoid forming any conclusions or making statements or other actions that could indicate that conclusions have been reached before all the facts are completed.
Use exit interviews, whistleblower hotlines and other processes to help identify and manage concerns before they turn into litigation or complaints.
Ensure that your employee hiring, promotion, compensation, demotion, termination and other practices and policies are well designed, documented and administered. Document personnel decisions consistently and fairly on an ongoing basis.
Be aware of and monitor potential retaliation exposures when conducting ongoing promotion, discharge, bonus and compensation and other day-to-day workforce actions. When an individual who has engaged in protected activity is terminated, denied a promotion or wage or experiences an event that the worker could perceive as adverse, take steps to review the action before it is finalized to identify and correct potential retaliation.
Consider getting employment practices liability coverage or other protection to provide a fund to defend claims.
Don’t overlook exposures arising from staffing or leasing arrangements, customer or vendor relationships or other third party relationships.
Seek competent legal advice and assistance with using attorney-client privilege and other rules of evidence, designing policies and practices, investigating and responding to complaints or enforcement actions and other activities.

When planning for and administering these and other compliance and risk management processes and procedures, keep in mind that the intent to retaliate generally is not required to create liability. Likewise, a business’ policy prohibiting retaliation is not an adequate shield against liability in most cases if in fact retaliation in violation of the policy occurs. Nevertheless, the efforts to prevent and mitigate retaliation are worthwhile. Not only can they prevent claims by deterring improper conduct or providing opportunities for correction and mitigation they also can help mitigate judgments and other liability in most instances.

For Assistance or More Information

If you have questions or need help with these or employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here . You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources.

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Other Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Comments Off on Statistics, OSHA Lawsuit Against AT&T Operator & Other DOL Action Highlights Rising Retaliation Exposures | Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Government Contractors, Human Resources, OFCCP, Public Policy, Stimulus Bill | Tagged: Discrimination, EEOC, Liability, OSHA, Retaliation, Whisteblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Government Contractor SCA Violation Costs It $2M & 3 Year Government Contracts Disbarrment

January 20, 2014

A nearly $2 million settlement agreement with a California-based government contractor announced January 15, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (DOL) illustrates why U.S. businesses providing goods and services directly or as subcontractors to the federal government should use care to properly compensate workers and comply with other requirements applicable to government contractors.

Lesson From Lange Trucking Inc.

According to the DOL, Lange Trucking Inc. will pay $1,979,779 in 401(k) pension benefits to 515 drivers working on U.S. Postal Service contracts to resolve DOL charges that the company violated the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act by not paying drivers required fringe benefits. The settlement also debars from eligibility for any further service contracts from any U.S. government agency for three years the company, along with its President, William A. Langenhuizen; Vice President, William H. Langenhuizen; Secretary Treasurer, Antoinette Langenhuizen; Vice President, Robert Langehuizen; and Vice President of Finance, Lisa Kulak. The Wage and Hour Division reported the settlement January 15, 2013 here.

The SCA applies to every contract entered into by the United States or the District of Columbia, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees. The SCA requires that contractors and subcontractors performing services on covered federal contracts in excess of $2,500 must pay their service workers no less than the wages and fringe benefits prevailing in the locality.

DOL reports that Wage and Hour investigators found that Lange Trucking failed to fully fund the drivers’ 401(k) plan, resulting in a violation of the SCA. Wage and Hour has investigated the company several times in the past. Lange Trucking paid $500,000 of the unpaid benefits while Hoovestol Inc., which is based in Eagan, Minn., acquired the company subsequent to the violations and voluntarily agreed to fund the remaining $1.48 million in benefits. Hoovestol, which cooperated fully with the Wage and Hour Division during its investigation, has also: corrected record-keeping procedures, overhauled the plan to ensure timely payments into the plan going forward, posted wage determinations at the work site and made information about the contracts accessible to employees.

Audits and Enforcement Rising

Government contractors face rising risks of audit and enforcement of their compliance with federal contracting requirements. The Obama Administration has made audit and enforcement of compliance a lead priority.

The risk of audit generally affects all federal government contractors and subcontractors. However, contractors providing services on projects funded from the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) signed into law by President Barack Obama in February, 2009 are even more at risk. ARRA-funded contracts are subject to special procedures under the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) “Procedures for Scheduling and Conducting Compliance Evaluations of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Funded Contractors” issued July 7, 2009. See OFCCP Order No. ADM 0901/SEL the “ARRA Procedures”).

Businesses providing services or supplies on ARRA funded projects directly or as subcontractors be considered government contractors, required to comply with the equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246, as amended (EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as amended (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended, 38 U.S.C. 4212 (VEVRAA). OFCCP has made clear that it will conduct compliance evaluations and host compliance assistance events to ensure that federal contractors comply and are aware of their responsibilities under EO 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA.

Beyond the heightened risks of enforcement due to the Obama Administration’s emphasis, government contractors and subcontractors also need to use care to monitor and maintain compliance with evolving requirements. In some cases, such as in the case of ARRA-funded projects, the applicability and requirements have been expended to extend to businesses or projects that historically might have qualified as exempt from government contractor rules.

In addition, the rules themselves are evolving in response to the regulatory and enforcement activism of the Obama Administration. In recent years, for instance, the Obama Administration has made audit and enforcement of federal disability, veterans and other nondiscrimination, affirmative action and other laws and rules for government contractors and other employers. An example of these evolving rules is reflected in the recent posting by the OFCCP of a third round of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) answering questions from contractors and the general public about provisions in the recently published Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503) Final Rules. These FAQs address implementation issues, such as the schedule for contractors to come into compliance with the affirmative action requirements of Subpart C of the new regulations.

In light of these developments, government contractors and subcontractors will want to review and verify their compliance with requirements as well as the adequacy of their recordkeeping and other documentation, as well as take other appropriate steps to manage their risks.

For Assistance or More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Other Information & Resources

Comments Off on Government Contractor SCA Violation Costs It $2M & 3 Year Government Contracts Disbarrment | Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Government Contractors, Human Resources, OFCCP, Public Policy, Stimulus Bill | Tagged: government contractor, Labor Department, OFCCP, service contractors act, wage and hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP Posts Additional FAQs on the Implementation of the VEVRAA and Section 503 Final Rules

December 26, 2013

The Office of FCCP posted a third round of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) answering questions from contractors and the general public about provisions in the recently published Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503) Final Rules. These FAQs address implementation issues, such as the schedule for contractors to come into compliance with the affirmative action requirements of Subpart C of the new regulations. These latest FAQs, published on the OFCCP Web site and marked with a “NEW” banner, are part of a series of FAQs, guidance materials, and resources that OFCCP is providing to contractors and the public between now and the March 24, 2014, effective date of the new rules.

The VEVRAA FAQs are available here. The Section 503 FAQs are available here.

For Assistance or More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on OFCCP Posts Additional FAQs on the Implementation of the VEVRAA and Section 503 Final Rules | 105(h), ADA, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Disability, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Employer, employment law, ERISA, Grants, Job Corps, Labor Department, OSHA, Workforce Investment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP Posts Additional FAQs on the Implementation of the VEVRAA and Section 503 Final Rules

December 26, 2013

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) posted a third round of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) answering questions from contractors and the general public about provisions in the recently published Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503) Final Rules. These FAQs address implementation issues, such as the schedule for contractors to come into compliance with the affirmative action requirements of Subpart C of the new regulations. These latest FAQs, published on the OFCCP Web site and marked with a “NEW” banner, are part of a series of FAQs, guidance materials, and resources that OFCCP is providing to contractors and the public between now and the March 24, 2014, effective date of the new rules.

The VEVRAA FAQs are available at here. The Section 503 FAQs are available at here

For Assistance or More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on OFCCP Posts Additional FAQs on the Implementation of the VEVRAA and Section 503 Final Rules | 105(h), ADA, Affirmative Action, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Disability, EEOC, EEOC, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor Management Relations, Military Leave, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Employer, Military Leave, Veterans Righs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG 2013 Top Management Challenges List Signals Tightening of Labor Department Enforcement

December 26, 2013

Employers should expect heighten scrutiny and enforcement in the labor law areas identified in the “2013 Top Management Challenges Facing the Department List” recently published by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General. Employers can expect to see the Labor Department and its component agencies acting to tighten oversight and enforcement in these areas in response to the OIG list.

For 2013, the OIG identified the following as the most serious management and performance challenges facing the Department:

Protecting the Safety and Health of Workers
Protecting the Safety and Health of Miners
Improving Performance Accountability of Workforce Investment Act Grants
Ensuring the Effectiveness of the Job Corps Program
Reducing Improper Payments
Ensuring the Security of Employee Benefit Plan Assets
Securing and Protecting Information Management Systems
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Veterans’ Employment and Training Service Programs

In the report accompanying the OIG list, the OIG presents the challenge, the OIG’s assessment of the Department’s progress in addressing the challenge, and what remains to be done. These top management challenges are intended to identify and help resolve serious weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources and provide critical services to the public. Typically, the identification of an area of concern by the OIG prompts tightening of processes and enforcement.

For Assistance or More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on OIG 2013 Top Management Challenges List Signals Tightening of Labor Department Enforcement | 105(h), ADA, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Disability, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Employer, employment law, ERISA, Grants, Job Corps, Labor Department, OSHA, Workforce Investment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Sues PBI Bank For Alleged Fiduciary Breach In Sale of ESOP Stock

December 26, 2013

Labor Department files suit to restore losses to the Miller’s Health Systems Employee Stock Ownership Plan

Bank or other plan trustees and fiduciaries of Employee Stock Ownership Plans or other employee benefit plans holding company stock, sponsoring employers and their management should heed the new Perez v. PBI Bank, Inc. lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Labor of the importance of not running afoul of the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when conducting business sales, bankruptcies or other corporate business transactions involving stock or other plan assets.

The U.S. Department of Labor filed the PBI Bank, Inc. in U.S. District Court to recover losses to the Miller’s Health Systems, Inc., Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The suit alleges that PBI Bank, Inc., the trustee of the plan, authorized the purchase of company stock for $40 million, an amount far in excess of the fair market value of the stock. The suit also alleges that PBI Bank approved financing for the transaction at an excessive interest rate. Miller’s Health is a Warsaw-based company that manages long-term care and assisted-living facilities. The lawsuit also seeks to remove PBI as a fiduciary and service provider of the plan and to permanently bar it from serving as a fiduciary or service provider to ERISA-covered plans in the future.

ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules generally require trustees and other fiduciaries of employee stock ownership or other employee benefit plans to act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries and abstain from self-dealing or prohibited transactions involving the plan. Fiduciaries that violate these rules risk personal liability for damages incurred by the plan, restoration of profits realized from prohibited transactions or other fiduciary breaches, as well as attorneys fees and other costs as well as disqualification from serving as a fiduciary for employee benefit plans and other potential civil or criminal relief.

The PBI Bank, Inc. case highlights how these risks can arise when a trustee or other fiduciary is asked to approve the sale of company stock held as a plan asset of an employee stock ownership or other employee benefit plan.

An investigation by the Chicago Regional Office of the department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration focused on a September 2007 stock purchase. The suit alleges that PBI violated ERISA by imprudently and disloyally approving the purchase of stock by the plan. The suit seeks to require PBI to restore all losses suffered by the ESOP, plus interest. As of September 30, 2012, the ESOP had 2,939 participants and assets of $12,848,000.

At the time of the stock purchase, Miller’s Health managed 31 long-term care facilities under the name of Miller’s Mary Manor and 10 assisted living facilities under the name Miller’s Senior Living. Miller’s Health also operated Theracare, Inc., an Indiana corporation, which primarily provided physical and occupational therapy and speech-language pathology to residents in Miller’s Health facilities.

After conducting its investigation, the department concluded that, as a result of the design of the transaction and the fiduciary breaches of PBI, the stock purchase was not for the primary benefit of participants and did not promote employee ownership in Miller’s Health. As a result, the department concluded that PBI was responsible and liable for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

When announcing the lawsuit, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi said, “Fiduciaries must act with undivided loyalty to plan participants. When it comes to ESOP stock purchases, they must ensure that the plan receives full value for its money.”

The PBI Bank suit highlights the challenges that trustees and other fiduciaries often face when dealing with employee stock ownership or other employee benefit plans holding stock of the sponsoring company. Valuation, purchase, sale, and other decisions about the stock fall within the prudence, exclusive benefit and other fiduciary responsibility rules of ERISA. These duties attach when the stock is purchased and continue thereafter as long as the stock remains a plan asset. Additionally sales or other transactions which result in the sale or other disbursement of the stock as asset of the plan, as well as a decision to continue to hold the stock during market or value changes also trigger these responsibilities.

A trustee or other fiduciary exercising discretion or control in name or functionally generally must be prepared to prove not only that its actions are prudent, but also that the value of the stock and other actions involving the plan and its assets were made for the exclusive benefit of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries. Because of the special issues and perception of potential conflict of interest that often inherently arise when a trustee or other fiduciary makes or influences decisions involving stock held by an employee stock ownership or other ERISA-covered plan, fiduciaries involved in these transactions should exercise particular care to act, and document appropriate evidence that he or it complied with these and other fiduciary requirements.

For Assistance or More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on DOL Sues PBI Bank For Alleged Fiduciary Breach In Sale of ESOP Stock | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: breach of fiduciary duty, employee stock ownership plan, Employer, ESOP, Fiduciary Responsibility, trustee | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Agencies Proposes To Treat Certain EAP, Dental and Vision Only Plans As ACA & HIPAA Excepted Benefits

December 26, 2013

February 24, 2014 is the deadline for interested employers, health insurers and plans, administrators and others to comment on proposed changes to rules defining what arrangements qualify as “excepted benefits” for purposes of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) eligibility, nondiscrimination and other portability mandates and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) health coverage reform mandates jointly published December 24, 2013 by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) , the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and the Health and Human Services Department (HHS)(collectively the “Agencies”).

The Proposed Amendments To Excepted Benefits Regulation (Proposed Rule) published by the Agencies jointly in the December 24, 2013 Federal Register would add certain employee assistance programs (EAPs) and certain vision and dental only plans as excepted benefits for purposes of HIPAA and ACA and make certain other changes to the excepted benefits definition . The Proposed Regulations would also provide added options for employees and employers in connection with ACA.

The definition of “excepted benefits” is critical for employers and insurers as HIPAA and ACA exempt from certain of their mandates arrangements that qualify as excepted benefits under the Agencies rules. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, ambiguities and confusion have persisted about when and if certain arrangements qualify as excepted benefits. Since HIPAA took effect, widespread abuse, debate and confusion about the treatment of certain mini-med and certain other benefit plans as excepted benefits prompted the Agencies to publish additional guidance. Despite this guidance, many continue to debate the treatment of certain of these and other arrangements. As the effective date of ACA’s employer and individual mandates and Heath Insurance Exchange premium tax credits, employers, employees and other stakeholders expressed concerns that the past HIPAA definition of excepted health benefits needed updating to prevent undesirable consequences for employees offered these arrangements.

The Proposed Regulations would amend current regulations to treat certain EAPs as excepted benefits, effective immediately. EAPs are typically free programs offered by employers that can provide wide-ranging benefits to address circumstances that might otherwise adversely affect employees’ work and health. Benefits may include short-term substance abuse or mental health counseling or referral services, as well as financial counseling and legal services. Under the Proposed Regulations, EAPs would be considered excepted benefits if the program is free to employees and does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment. As excepted benefits, EAPs would be exempt from private insurance market reforms, and EAP coverage would not make individuals ineligible for a premium tax credit under ACA for enrolling in qualified health plans through the Health Insurance Marketplaces created by ACA.

Similarly, under the Proposed Regulations, vision and dental benefits provided by employers on a self-insured basis would be able to qualify as excepted benefits effective immediately under the conditions specified in the Proposed Regulations, even if they do not require contributions from employees. Insured vision and dental benefits, as well as self-insured vision and dental coverage that requires employee contributions, already qualify as excepted benefits.

The proposal to treat EAPs and stand alone dental and vision benefits require that the arrangements meet the specific requirements set forth in the Proposed Regulations. For instance, to keep benefits like dental benefits and vision benefits from coming under ACA mandates, an employer must offer the benefits separately from any group health plan and charge a separate premium for the excepted benefits.

Effective for plan years starting in 2015, the Proposed Regulations also would treat as excepted benefits certain limited coverage provided by plan sponsors that “wraps around” an individual market policy. The “wraparound” coverage would be available to employees for whom the plan sponsor’s primary group health coverage is not affordable and who instead get coverage through a nongrandfathered individual market policy. The wraparound coverage would provide extra benefits or broader networks, and may also reduce cost sharing. The proposal in the Proposed Regulations would not allow the wraparound coverage to substitute for employment-based coverage. The value of the wraparound coverage could not exceed 15 percent of the value of the primary coverage offered by the plan sponsor, which the Proposed Regulations would require to be affordable for at least the majority of employees.

The Obama administration may create a new type of benefit program for employers that send some workers to the individual exchanges to get health coverage.

A “limited wraparound plan” would give employers a way to beef up the benefits of some workers who get their coverage from an individual exchange rather than enrolling in the employer’s group health plan.

Some employers provide dental and vision plans along with health plans, without charging workers extra. The employers complained that they might have to start collecting small premiums just to keep their dental and vision plans from becoming PPACA plans.

The federal agencies have proposed letting employers keep the self-insured dental and vision benefits out from under PPACA without having to collect separate premiums.

The federal agencies also have made good on previous promises to clarify the rules stating how sponsors of employee assistance plans can keep the EAPs from becoming PPACA plans.

In the section on limited wraparound plans, the agencies talk about strategies for keeping the plans from giving employers a way to drop their group health plans and send all workers to the individual health insurance exchanges.

To offer a wraparound plan, an employer would have to offer a good group health plan. The employer could offer the wraparound plan benefits only to workers who bought “qualified health plan” coverage from an exchange because they found that the group health coverage was unaffordable.

An employer could use a wraparound plan to give workers with QHP coverage benefits similar to what workers in the group health plan have.

The cost of the wraparound coverage would have to be 15 percent or less of the cost of the group health coverage.

Speak Up On The Proposed Changes

Employers, health plan fiduciaries and administrators, health insurers, and others concerned about the scope and effect of the excepted benefit definition should review the proposed changes as soon as possible and provide comments to encourage tailoring the definition optimally. Input on the proposed changes and other feedback on the definition of excepted benefits and its effect on health care coverage or other health care coverage or reform concerns should be carefully prepared and submitted to the Agencies as well as where appropriate, with Congress. In addition , we also encourage you and others to help understand the rules and their implications by sharing your thoughts on these and other concerns in the Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy linkedin group. The Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy is a group hosted by Solutions Law Press, Inc. hosts to provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.

For Assistance or More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Agencies Proposes To Treat Certain EAP, Dental and Vision Only Plans As ACA & HIPAA Excepted Benefits | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, employer shared responsibility, exchanges, HIE, reporting, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

1/1/14 Exchange Enrollment Deadline Extended As Enrollment Still Lags

December 24, 2013

With enrollment in the new Federal and State Health Insurance Exchanges, which the Obama Administration calls “Marketplaces” lagging and Americans attempting to use the Federal and state Exchange enrollment platforms continuing to experience technical “glitches,” the Obama Administration is extending again the deadline for Americans who want to get health coverage offered through the Exchanges to begin January 1, 2014.

The Administration quietly revised the Exchange enrollment page at Healthcare.gov to instructs visitors that Americans who weren’t able to enroll in an insurance plan by December 23 because of problems you had using HealthCare.gov and want coverage that starts January 1, 2014 to contact the Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596 (available 24/7; closed December 25. TTY: 1-855-889-4325).

Are you concerned about health care coverage or other health care issues or policy concerns? Join the discussion and share your input by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

About Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Its Coalition on Responsible Health Policy

The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key.

We also encourage you and others to help develop real meaningful improvements by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources. The Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.

For Assistance or More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on 1/1/14 Exchange Enrollment Deadline Extended As Enrollment Still Lags | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, employer shared responsibility, exchanges, HIE, reporting, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Performing Income, Payroll Tax Duties For Employers Confirm Compliance With Updated IRS Procedures

December 14, 2013

Payroll, staffing employee leasing and other businesses that provide workers, staffing, payroll or other related services and the businesses that use these services should review their status to determine if the service provider might be considered to act as the “agent” of their client businesses for purposes of the withholding of income taxes from wages and/or the collection, reporting and payment of income and employment taxes on behalf of another employer business and if so, their responsibilities as agents for these purposes under Revenue Procedure 2013-39

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently released Revenue Procedure 2013-39. It describes and updates the procedure for requesting the IRS authorize a person to act as agent under section 3504 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and §31.3504-1 of the Employment Tax Regulations for purposes of Chapters 21, 22, 24, and 25 of the Code. Special instructions are also set forth for agents authorized to perform acts for purposes of Chapter 23 of the Code.

Chapters 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the Code impose obligations on employers with regard to employment taxes. Specifically, Chapter 21 imposes Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, Chapter 22 imposes Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) tax, Chapter 23 imposes Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax. Meanwhile, Chapter 24 imposes Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages (income tax withholding), and Chapter 25 provides general provisions on employment taxes.

While these Code provisions generally impose these obligations on the common law employer of the employee with respect to whose wages the taxes arise, Section 3504 of the Code authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations to authorize a fiduciary, agent, or other person (“agent”) who has the control of, receives, has custody of, disposes of, or pays the wages of an employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, to perform certain specified acts required of employers. Under section 3504, all provisions of law (including penalties) applicable with respect to an employer are applicable to the agent and stay applicable to the common law employer. Accordingly, both the agent and employer are liable for the employment taxes and penalties associated with violations of these requirements.

In addition to updating the procedures generally applicable for parties to act as agents of employers for purposes of income and payroll taxes generally, the Revenue Procedure also sets forth special rules for agents dealing with home health workers as well as certain other special circumstances.

Businesses that could be considered to act as agents of another business should carefully review their status to determine whether their organization could be considered an agent for purposes of these rules either because they openly perform these responsibilities as a declared agent in accordance with current IRS procedures, or because the facts and circumstances under which their business acts as an employee leasing, staffing, professional employment organization (PEO) create a risk that workers treated as employed by the service provider could in fact be recharacterized on audit as common law employees of the customer.

Beyond the employer responsibilities under existing income and employment tax rules, proper classification also may have implications on the parties responsibilities under the employer shared responsibility rules of Code Section 4980H. In Notice 2013-54, the IRS stated that the IRS might be willing to recognize health coverage provided by a staffing, employee leasing or other firm to a worker where the facts and circumstances reflect that the common law employer of the worker in fact is the customer of the staffing company as coverage provided by the common law employer. In comments made at an American Bar Association Joint Tax and RPTE Meeting this Fall, however, IRS representatives also commented that they contemplated that this ability would be limited to situations where the staffing entity or other service provider registers as the agent of the customer which was the common law employer of the workers. Businesses must await further clarifying guidance about whether and how the IRS ultimately implements these rules.

For Assistance or More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Businesses Performing Income, Payroll Tax Duties For Employers Confirm Compliance With Updated IRS Procedures | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, employer shared responsibility, Employment Tax, Income Tax, reporting, Withholding, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Share Model HIPAA Notices 1 Week Before Deadline For Updating Business Associate Agreements

September 16, 2013

A week before the September 23, 2013 deadline for all health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates to have updated their business associate agreements to comply with the Final Omnibus HIPAA Rule, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today (September 16, 2013) released Model Notices of Privacy Practices (Notices) for health care providers and health plans to use to communicate with their patients and plan members. With penalties and enforcement continuing to rise, Covered Entities and their business associates should take appropriate steps to review and update their privacy and breach notification policies and procedures, privacy officer appointments, notices of privacy practices, business associate agreements and other HIPAA compliance and risk management documentation, practices, procedures and coverage, breach notification and other HIPAA compliance and risk management practice.

Model HIPAA Notices

Developed collaboratively by ONC and OCR the Notices available here designed in the following three different styles are designed for users to customize to fit their specific needs and practices:

A notice in the form of a booklet;
A layered notice with a summary of the information on the first page and full content on the following pages; and
A notice with the design elements of the booklet, but that is formatted for full-page presentation.

Use of these model Notices is optional. While the agencies designed the Notices to let Covered Entities to use these models by entering some of their own information into the model, such as contact information, and then printing for distribution and posting on their websites, Covered Entities should consult with legal counsel to determine the suitability of the Notices generally for their entity’s use and any customization, if any, that may be recommended or required to a Notice if the Covered Entity decides rely upon a model Notice to prepare its Notice of Privacy Practices. To facilitate any tailoring, the agencies provided a text-only version for Covered Entities wishing only wish to use the content with or without tailoring.

September 23 Business Associate Agreement Update Deadline

September 23, 2013 also is the final deadline established in the Final Omnibus HIPAA Rule for Covered Entities and their business associations to update the business associate agreements required by HIPAA to reflect application of the breach notification, business associate, and many of HIPAA’s requirements to directly cover business associates and other aspects of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. While HHS published a Sample Business Associate Agreement last June to aid Covered Entities and their business associates with understanding the business associate agreement requirements as impacted by the Omnibus Final HIPAA Rule, it also made clear that Covered Entities and their business associates should tailor their business associate agreements to fit their specific circumstances and relationships. OCR National Office and regional officials speaking about their findings about past business associate agreement compliance have indicated that their audit and enforcement activities show widespread compliance issues among Covered Entities and business associates with the original business associate agreements. OCR clearly expects Covered Entities and their business associates to address and resolve these compliance issues going forward.

Covered Entities and their business associates are increasingly at peril if caught violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security or Breach Notification rules. With the HITECH Act Breach Notification rules now requiring Covered Entities to self-disclose breaches, OCR becomes aware of breaches much more easily. Coupled with the HITECH Act’s increase in sanctions for HIPAA violations, Covered Entities and, beginning September 23, 2013, their business associates face rising risks for violating HIPAA. See, e.g. HHS Settles with Health Plan in Photocopier Breach Case; WellPoint Settles HIPAA Security Case for $1,700,000; Shasta Regional Medical Center Settles HIPAA Security Case for $275,000; Idaho State University Settles HIPAA Security Case for $400,000; and HHS announces first HIPAA breach settlement involving less than 500 patients.

In response to the updated Final Regulations and these expanding HIPAA enforcement and exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

For Help or More Information

If you need assistance responding to HIPAA or other health industry regulatory, enforcement or other developments, reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement actions; with 2014 health plan decision-making, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer for help.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her extensive work, publications, and thought leadership on HIPAA and other privacy and data security issues. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual Technical Sessions meeting with OCR for the past three years, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes extensive work advising, representing and training health plan, health insurance, health IT, health care and other clients on HIPAA and other privacy, data protection and breach and other related matters and represents and advises these and other clients in responding to OCR Privacy and Civil Rights and other HHS agencies, Labor Department, IRS regulations, investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is recognized for her extensive publications and programs including numerous highly regarding publications and programs on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications.

Beyond her HIPAA involvement, Ms. Stamer also continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For important information about this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Nonexclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

[*] On January 24, 2013, the Department of Labor (the Department) issued guidance stating the Department’s conclusion that the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B will not take effect on March 1, 2013 for several reasons until further guidance setting the extended deadline was published.

Comments Off on HHS Share Model HIPAA Notices 1 Week Before Deadline For Updating Business Associate Agreements | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, Afffordable Care Act, Breah Notification, Covered Entities, Exchange Notice, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, OCR, Pay or Play, SBC | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Publishes Final Health Reform Individual Shared Responsibility Rules

September 1, 2013

Starting in 2014, the Individual Shared Responsibility mandate of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) dictates that each individual American either have minimum essential coverage for each month, qualify for an exemption, or make a payment when filing his or her federal income tax return. In anticipation of the implementation of this Individual Shared Responsibility mandate, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published final regulations implementing the Individual Shared Responsibility mandate in the Internal Revenue Code. The guidance contained in these final regulations provide each American with critical information about their families’ potential exposure to liability for the individual shared responsibility tax in 2014 as well as key insights for employers. Solutions Law Press, Inc. authors are finalizing various articles on certain key aspects of these new regulations for publication over the next few days. Stay tuned for more details!

For each month beginning after December 31, 2013, Internal Revenue Code Section 5000A’s Individual Shared Responsibility mandate requires that individual Americans either qualify as exempt, maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves and any nonexempt family members, or pay an individual shared responsibility payment when paying their Federal income tax return. A taxpayer will be obligated to pay the individual shared responsibility tax under Internal Revenue Code Section 5000A for any non-exempt individual the taxpayer claims on his or her individual tax return as a dependent who is not exempt or enrolled in minimum essential coverage.

Under § 5000A(f)(2), minimum essential coverage includes coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan.

The final regulations set the rules that the IRS will use to decide when an individual American will become liable for paying the tax imposed by ACA for failing to maintain the minimum required health insurance coverage mandated by ACA beginning January 1, 2013 and other related rules. While specifically addressing the obligations of individual Americans to pay the Individual Shared Responsibility payment, the final rules coupled with the availability of the new option for individual Americans to buy coverage through an ACA-qualified federal health care exchange and, depending on the adjusted household income of the individual, potentially also to receive tax credits for enrolling in coverage through an exchange is likely to impact the enrollment choices that employed individuals make about enrolling in coverage offered by their employer versus in coverage through a federally qualified health insurance exchange. Accordingly, both individual Americans and the businesses that employ them should act quickly to understand the key aspects of the final regulations and their implications.

When considering the effect of these final regulations, employers and individual Americans should keep in mind that Notice 2013-42, issued on June 26, 2013, provides limited transition relief from the Individual Shared Responsibility mandate for employees and their families who are eligible to enroll in certain employer-sponsored health plans with a plan year other than a calendar year if the plan year begins in 2013 and ends in 2014. For additional information on the Individual Shared Responsibility provision, the final regulations and Notice 2013-42, see the IRS questions and answers.

Coming slightly less than a month before the October 1, 2013 scheduled opening of the first enrollment period for individual Americans to enroll in health care coverage through a federally qualified health insurance exchange created pursuant to ACA and the deadline for employers to deliver the notice of the availability of this option dictated by Fair Labor Standards Act 18B, the final regulations and Obama Administration’s announced plans to enforce its provisions has drawn criticism from a number of groups. While the Obama Administration has indicated that it still plans to enforce the Individual Shared Responsibility mandate against individual Americans, it announced in July, 2013 that it would delay enforcement of the Employer Shared Responsibility Mandate rules of Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H until 2015. Many consumer rights groups and others are arguing that the Administration should also delay its enforcement of the Individual Shared Responsibility Mandate in light of its delay of enforcement of Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H against businesses. Pending a reversal of its position or Congressional relief, the final regulation signal to individual Americans and their employers to prepare to deal with the new Individual Shared Responsibility Mandate beginning in January, 2014.

While the delay in enforcement of the Section 4980H employer shared responsibility payment until 2015 means that employers will not incur liability for failing to provide coverage meeting the minimum essential coverage, minimum value and affordability standards of Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H, the impending implementation of the Individual Shared Responsibility mandate of Internal Revenue Code Section 5000A and the impending availability of tax credits for certain individuals with Household Adjusted Gross Incomes of less than 400 percent of the poverty level almost certainly will influence enrollment decisions that employees make concerning coverage offered by their employer, if any. Employers can expect that employee choices about enrolling in employer-sponsored group health coverage will be influenced by the impending obligation to enroll in coverage or pay the individual shared responsibility tax in 2014 governed by the final regulations. Employers can expect that employee concern about these exposures will prompt many employees to carefully scrutinize and in some cases question the information and implications of information provided by the employer or its plan such as the Section 18B notice that employers must provide by October 1, 2013, the summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) that the Affordable Care Act obligations the employer or plan to provide as the employees work to sort out their choices. As these and other plan communications are likely to face significant scrutiny, employers and their employee benefit plan fiduciaries and administrators should use extra care to ensure that these and other plan documents and communications are carefully and precisely tailored to accurately convey all material plan terms.

For Help or More Information

If you need help understanding or dealing with these impending notification requirements, with other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

Nonexclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on IRS Publishes Final Health Reform Individual Shared Responsibility Rules | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, Afffordable Care Act, Breah Notification, Covered Entities, Exchange Notice, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, OCR, Pay or Play, SBC | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Impending 10/1 Exchange Notice & Other New Notice Deadlines Cut Time Short For Employers To Finalize 2014 Health Plan Terms & Contracts

August 21, 2013

Employer and union group health plan sponsors and insurers of group and individual health plans (Health Plans) agonizing over 2014 plan design decisions are running out of time. Impending deadlines to update and deliver the initial Exchange Notice by October 1, 2013, the Summary of Benefits and Communications (SBC) disclosure before their next enrollment period begins, and 60-day prior notice of material reductions in benefits or services under the plan mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) require employers or other sponsors to finalize design decisions and amendments well in advance of January 1, 2014. These new notification obligations create added urgency and pressure for Health Plans and their employer and other sponsors to finalize and implement their decisions on their Health Plans 2014 plan designs and coverages and make the necessary determinations to prepare and timely deliver the required notifications in accordance with these new notification mandates well before the start of the 2014 plan year or its enrollment period. Employers who in the past have put off these decisions until the last month of the plan year no longer can legally do so.

ACA Exchange Notices Due By October 1

One of the biggest time constraints for finalizing 2014 plan designs, contracts and terms is the impending October 1, 2014 deadline for employers to provide the notice required by Fair Labor Standards Act Section 18B.

Regardless of if the employer sponsors a health plan or when the next plan enrollment period begins, all employers covered by the FLSA generally are required deliver a notice to employees about the new option beginning January 1, 2014 to get health care coverage through a health care exchange (now rebranded by the Obama Administration as a “Marketplace”)(Marketplace) created by ACA that meets the requirements of new FLSA Section 18B enacted Section 1512 of ACA.

Absent a delay or other reprieve from the Obama Administration or Congress, Open enrollment for health insurance coverage through the Marketplace begins October 1, 2013. Individuals and employees of small businesses beginning October 1, 2013 can apply for and, beginning January 1, 2014 to buy health care coverage offered through the Marketplace established under ACA for their state (including the Federal Marketplace for states that did not elect to establish their own Marketplace). Some individuals who earn less than 400% of the federal poverty level and meet certain other conditions also are slated to qualify to receive federal subsidies that will pay all or part of the cost of buying coverage through a Marketplace.

To promote awareness among employees of the Marketplace as an option for getting health coverage, creates a new FLSA Section 18B requiring a notice (Exchange Notice) to employees of coverage options available through the Marketplace. Originally required by March 1, 2013,[*] the Department of Labor (DOL) extended the deadline for providing the Exchange Notice to October 1, 2013. Employers must provide a notice of coverage options to each employee, regardless of plan enrollment status (if applicable) or of part-time or full-time status. Employers are not required to provide a separate notice to dependents or other individuals who are or may become eligible for coverage under the plan but who are not employees.

All FLSA-Covered Employers Must Provide Exchange Notices Beginning October 1, 2013

Under FLSA Section 18B of the FLSA, each applicable employer must provide each employee at the time of hiring (or with respect to current employees, by October 1, 2013), a written notice that fulfills the applicable Exchange Notice requirements as set forth in the DOL Regulations.

The FLSA section 18B requirement to provide a notice to employees of coverage options applies to all employers subject to the FLSA. In general, the FLSA applies to employers that employ one or more employees who are engaged in, or produce goods for, interstate commerce. For most firms, a test of not less than $500,000 in annual dollar volume of business applies. The FLSA also specifically covers the following entities: hospitals; institutions primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, mentally ill, or disabled who reside on the premises; schools for children who are mentally or physically disabled or gifted; preschools, elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education; and federal, state and local government agencies. Employers questioning whether their business is subject to the FLSA should seek the assistance of legal counsel experienced with the FLSA.

Timing and Delivery of Notice

Employers are required to provide the Exchange Notice to each new employee at the time of hiring beginning October 1, 2013. For 2014, the Department will consider a notice to be provided at the time of hiring if the notice is provided within 14 days of an employee’s start date.

For employees who are current employees before October 1, 2013, employers must provide the Exchange Notice no later than October 1, 2013.

The Exchange Notice must be provided in writing in a manner calculated to be understood by the average employee. Employers may deliver the Exchange Notice by first-class mail or, if the electronic notification requirements of the Department of Labor’s electronic disclosure safe harbor at 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c) are met, electronically.

Required Content of Exchange Notice

The Exchange Notice content mandated by FLSA Section 18B is fairly limited. Section 18B requires that the Exchange Notice only dictates three required elements:

Inform employees of coverage options, including information about the existence of the new Marketplace as well as contact information and description of the services provided by a Marketplace;
Inform the employee that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under Section 36B of the Code if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace; and
Include a statement informing the employee that if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes. At minimum, this generally requires that the Exchange Notice distributed by an employer must inform the employee.

Interim DOL guidance implementing these requirements construes the content requirements as requiring that the Exchange Notice tell the employee:

Of the existence of the Marketplace (referred to in the statute as the Exchange) including a description of the services provided by the Marketplace, and the way the employee may contact the Marketplace to request assistance;
That the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit or subsidy under Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace and the employer does not offer coverage to the employee under a group health plan that is considered to provide “Minimum Value” for purposes of ACA; and
That if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.

Allow Adequate Time To Do Analysis, Complete Other Steps To Prepare Exchange Notices

Employers should resist the urge to allow the shortness of the list of information required that FLSA Section 18B requires in the Exchange Notice lure them into underestimating the time and effort required to prepare the Exchange Notification. For many employers, determining if the Health Plan provides Minimum Value can be time-consuming and complex.

For this, the SBC notice discussed later in this update and other purposes, Code Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) provides that an employer-sponsored Health Plan provides Minimum Value if the ratio of the share of total costs paid by the Health Plan relative to the total costs of covered services is no less than 60% of the anticipated covered medical spending for covered benefits paid by a group health plan for a standard population, computed in accordance with the plan’s cost-sharing, and divided by the total anticipated allowed charges for covered benefits provided to a standard population is no less than 60%. See Patient Protection and ACA: Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation Regulation.

Existing regulations require the employers to get an actuarial certification to determine if its Health Plan provides Minimum Value unless the employer can show that the Health Plan fits the criteria to use and satisfies this test using either the Minimum Value Calculator or an applicable safe harbor design approved by HHS, Treasury and DOL. These determinations often are time consuming and complex requiring careful review and analysis of the group health plan coverage and benefits. Many self-insured or other group health plans have plan designs that prevent the employer from relying on the Minimum Value Calculator or design safe harbors. If the employer cannot rely upon the Minimum Value Calculator or one of the design safe harbors, an actuarial certification will be needed. Employers need to allow sufficient time to make these determinations in time to complete and deliver the Exchange Notices.

Employers should particularly expect to need to obtain an actuarial certification to determine if the Health Plan provides Minimum Value determination if the Health Plan is taking advantage of temporary relief from the cost sharing limitations of ACA for 2014 announced by the Obama Administration in February and reconfirmed in July, that for 2014 allows Health Plans to apply a separate ACA-compliant out-of-pocket maximum to prescription drug benefits from the ACA-compliant out-of-pocket maximum applied to all other benefits subject to ACA’s cost sharing restrictions. Since the Minimum Value Calculator cannot take into account this option, however, employers planning to apply a separate out-of-pocket maximum for prescription drug coverage versus other plan benefits should be prepared to get an actuarial certification of whether the plan provides Minimum Value.

DOL Model Exchange Notices Not Panacea

Employers may want to use some or all of the language that the DOL included in Model Notices that DOL published in conjunction with its publication of interim guidance on FLSA Section 18B in Technical Release No. 2013-02 on May 8, 2013 here. Because employers must tailor the content of the Exchange Notice for their group health plan based on specific information about their group health plan, employers are cautioned not to underestimate the time or effort that will be required to properly prepare the Exchange Notice for their group health plan, whether or not the employer makes use of the Model Notices in whole or part.

DOL published three model exchange notices (Model Notices) to assist employers in preparing the Exchange Notice for their Health Plan for 2014. One Model Notice is intended for employers who do not offer a Health Plan. The second Model Notice is designed for employers who offer a health plan to some or all employees. The third Model Notice is designed for employers to use to notify individuals who are enrolled or eligible to enroll in continuation coverage under the Health Plan under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Technical Release No. 2013-02 says employers may use the applicable of these models or a modified version, provided the Exchange Notice meets the content requirements described above.

Despite the availability of these Model Notices, preparing and providing the required Exchange Notices required by Section 18B typically requires significant evaluation and presents a variety of challenges for most employers. While intended to facilitate the ability of employers to prepare and provide the required Exchange Notices, preparing the Model Notices generally is challenging for many employers.

First, even using the Model Notices, the employer must decide if the Health Plan provides Minimum Value.

Another challenge with wholesale use of the Model Notices involves deciding how much of the optional language contained in the Model Notices to include in the Exchange Notice and what optional information, if any, to provide as part of that Notice.

For one thing, the Model Notices propose that the Exchange Notice include statements that many critics view as inappropriately promoting enrollment in coverage through the Marketplace rather than employer sponsored group health plans. Critics complain, for instance that the Model Notice’s statement that the Marketplaces offer “one-stop shopping” that allows the employee to get coverage that the Model Notice states is more “affordable” are inaccurate or misleading. Many critics view the assertion that coverage obtained through the exchange is more “affordable” to be inaccurate as it does not take into account a comparison of the actual benefits and costs of the respective plan options and whether the employee can afford the typically richer (and therefore often more expensive) benefit packages ACA’s essential health benefits mandates require be included in coverage offered for sale through the Marketplaces and presumes that these higher costs will be defrayed by tax credits or subsidies that are only available if the employee earns less than 400% of the federal poverty level and is not offered the option to enroll in an employer sponsored group health plan coverage that provides “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) and Minimum Value and is “affordable” within the meaning of ACA.

Employers considering using the Model Notices also need to decide if their Exchange Notices will include the optional factual disclosures about their group health plan suggested in the Model Notices, but not required to fulfill the requirements of FLSA Section 18B.

The Model Notices propose that an employer also voluntarily provide a significant amount of other information about its group health plan that FLSA Section permits, but does not require that the Exchange Notice include. The DOL says it designed the Model Notices to help employers to identify and disclose information that the DOL expects employees interested in the tax credit to subsidize the employee’s cost of enrolling in coverage through the Marketplace will need to get from employers to show eligibility. DOL assumes that many employers might want to voluntarily provide this information in the Exchange Notice to avoid receiving a multitude of anticipated inquiries from employees interested seeking tax credits to subsidize their enrollment in coverage through the Marketplace. Since collection the data necessary to make these optional disclosures can add significant complexity and time to the preparation of the Exchange Notice, employers should carefully weigh the pros and cons of making the optional disclosures. The anticipated demand for this information has declined since the Obama Administration announced it plans to use an “honor system” approach to determine if individuals can claim eligibility for tax credit subsidies for buying coverage through the Marketplaces in 2014. Meanwhile, the interim nature of the existing guidance on the Exchange Notice and other key aspects of ACA make it reasonable to expect further changes in the expected content of the Exchange Notice, ACA requirements that it is intended to communicate or both which could impact the need for or accuracy of these disclosures. For this reason, employers should carefully consider whether and what optional disclosures to include in their Exchange Notices.

Don’t Forget To Notify COBRA Qualified Beneficiaries

Technical Release No. 2013-02 indicates that in addition to sending an Exchange Notice to employees, employers or their group health plan administrators also must notify COBRA eligible or enrolled individuals.

In general, under COBRA, an individual who was covered by a group health plan on the day before a qualifying event occurred may be able to elect COBRA continuation coverage upon a qualifying event (such as termination of employment or reduction in hours that causes loss of coverage under the plan). Individuals with such a right are called qualified beneficiaries. A group health plan must provide qualified beneficiaries with an election notice, which describes their rights to continuation coverage and how to make an election. The election notice must be provided to the qualified beneficiaries within 14 days after the plan administrator receives the notice of a qualifying event.

Technical Release No. 2013-02 says that the DOL considers the required disclosures for the Exchange Notice information to be disclosed to qualified beneficiaries and that the DOL is revising previously published model COBRA notices to incorporate this information.

DOL says in Technical Release No. 2013-02 that the group health plans can use the revised model COBRA election notice to satisfy the requirement to provide the election notice under COBRA including the disclosure of information required by FLSA Section 18B. The DOL cautions that as with the earlier model COBRA notices, in order to use this model election notice properly, the plan administrator must complete it by filling in the blanks with the appropriate plan information. Technical Release 2013-02 states that use of the model election notice, appropriately completed, will be considered by the Department of Labor to be good faith compliance with the election notice content requirements of COBRA.

ACA SBC Mandate Overview

In addition to the Exchange Notice requirement, the need to prepare and timely delivery the “Summary of Benefits and Coverage or “SBC”) required by ACA also pressures employers to finalize their health plan terms and contracts for 2014 as soon as possible.

ACA amended the Public Health Services Act (PHS) Section 2715, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 715 and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 9815 to require that Health Plans and health insurance issuers provide a SBC and a “Uniform Glossary” that “accurately describes the benefits and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage” in a way that meets the format, content and other detailed SBC standards set for ACA as implemented by the Departments regulatory guidance. Like the Exchange Notice, proper preparation of the SBC requires determination of whether the Health Plan provides Minimum Value, as well as other detailed analysis of the plan terms and coverages to complete the other disclosures required in the SBC.

The Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary Final Regulation (Final Regulation) implementing this requirement published February 14, 2012 generally requires Health Plans at specified times including before the first offer of coverage under the Plan as well as following certain material changes to the Plan. For Health Plans providing group health plan coverage, FAQs About ACA Implementation (Part VII)[*] set the deadline for Health Plan to deliver a SBC as follows, while at the same time indicating that the Departments would not impose penalties on plans and issuers “working diligently and in good faith” to provide the required SBC content in an appearance consistent with the Final Regulations:

To covered persons enrolling or re-enrolling in an open enrollment period (including late enrollees and re-enrollees) as the first day of the first open enrollment period that begins on or after September 23, 2012; and
For individuals enrolling in coverage other than through an open enrollment period (including individuals who are newly eligible for coverage and special enrollees) as the first day of the first plan year that begins on or after September 23, 2012. See FAQs About ACA Implementation (Part VIII).

While the SBC doesn’t prohibit an employer from amending its Health Plan terms after the enrollment period begins, employers that change Health Plan terms or designs after distributing a SBC must incur the expense and effort to prepare and redistribute an updated SBC. Accordingly, most Health Plans and their sponsors or insurers will want to finalize Health Plan terms before the enrollment period begins to avoid the need to and expense of sending updated SBCs as a result of a later change in Health Plan terms.

The Final Regulation and other existing guidance generally dictates that Health Plans follow a required template for providing the SBC and accompanying glossary. When publishing the Final Regulation, the Departments also published the required SBC template form (2013 SBC Template) and instructions for Health Plans to use to prepare and provide the required SBC for coverage beginning before January 1, 2014 and promised updated guidance and templates for use in providing SBCs for post-2013 coverage. While the Agencies clarified certain other details about the SBC rules, they did not materially change the required content or form of the 2013 SBC Template until their April 23, 2013 release of FAQs About ACA Implementation (Part XIV). See e.g. FAQs About ACA Implementation Part IX and Part X.

FAQ Part XIV Requires MEC and Minimum Value Disclosures In SBC

FAQs About ACA Implementation (Part XIV) published April 23, 2013 announces the updated required 2014 SBC Template that the Agencies are requiring to SBCs for periods of health coverage from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Along with the 2014 SBC Template, the Agencies also published 2014 Sample Completed SBC, which provides an example of a SBC completed for a hypothetical health plan prepared by the Agencies.

The 2014 SBC Template updates the 2013 SBC Template and Sample Completed Template to add information the Agencies believe individuals eligible for Health Plan coverage should know in light of the impending implementation of the individual shared responsibility requirements of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 5000A and the employer shared responsibility rules of Code Section 4980H commonly called ACA’s “pay-or-play” rules. These were the “penalty” provisions that the Supreme Court ruled are taxes in 2013.

The April 23, 2013 FAQ expressly requires that SBCs for periods of coverage after December 31, 2013 disclose if the Health Plans provide MEC and Minimum Value to enable participants and beneficiaries to understand if enrollment in the Health Plan will suffice to allow the employee to avoid paying the individual penalty under Code Section 5000(a)’s individual “shared responsibility” rules, to compare the coverage and costs to enroll in the employer’s Health Plan versus to enroll in health care coverage through a Marketplace and to predict how their eligibility for enrollment in the employer’s Health Plan will impact their eligibility to qualify to claim tax credits under Code Section 32G to help subsidize the cost to purchase coverage through a Marketplace.

Code Section 5000A generally imposes a penalty tax on individuals that fail to maintain enrollment in MEC within the meaning of Code Section 5000A(f) and not otherwise exempt under Code Section 5000A(d). As of the publication of this update, the Obama Administration has not announced any delay in the enforcement of this penalty against individuals, but legislation is pending in Congress that would delay its applicability, along with approving the delay of enforcement of the Code Section 4980H penalties previously announced by the Obama Administration.

Although the Obama Administration announced in early July, 2013 that it will not enforce collection of the Code Section 4980H provisions against employers until 2015, Code Section 4980H generally requires employers of 50 or more full-time employees to pay a penalty if the employer fails to offer a group health plan providing MEC and Minimum Value Minimum Value is determined for this purpose in the same manner that it is determined for purposes of making the required disclosure in the Exchange Notice.

60-Day Advance Notice of Material Changes Requirement

In addition to providing the required Exchange Notice and SBCs, employers, group health plans and their plan administrators also must ensure that participants and beneficiaries are given at least 60 days prior notice before the effective date of any “material reduction in covered services or benefits.” See 29

CFR Section 2520.104b-3(d)(3); also see 29 CFR Section 2520.104b-3(d)(2) regarding a 90-day alternative rule.

Section 102 of ERISA has been amended to require 60-day advance notice of material plan changes for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2012 before the change can be effective. The 60-day advance notification requirement is a modification to the summary plan description/summary of material modification requirements generally applicable to employee benefit plans under ERISA.

The rule’s definition of “material modification” is the same as the definition in the summary of material modifications rule generally applicable to employee benefit plans under ERISA Section 102.

DOL guidance indicates that group health plans can meet the 60-day advance notice requirement by providing an updated Summary of Benefits and Coverage if the change is reflected on the summary or by sending a separate written notice describing the material modification.

Group health plan issuers or sponsors that willfully (intentionally) fail to provide the notice of material modification can face a fine of up to $1,000 for each failure. Each covered individual equates to a separate offense for purposes of these penalties.

Employer and other group health sponsors, issuers, fiduciaries and administrators also should keep in mind that courts historically refuse to enforce reductions in benefits or services provided under the plan until participants and beneficiaries are notified of the change. For purposes of the ERISA notification rules, group health plans, their sponsors, insurers, administrators and fiduciaries are cautioned to take into account whether health care providers or other parties who have assignments of benefits should be provided with notification under these or other ERISA rules in addition to the employees and dependents who are enrolled in coverage under the group health plan.

Notice Deadlines Mean Time Short To Adopt & Communicate 2014 Plan Terms

Employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, administrators and others involved in 2014 group health plan decisions and preparations must take into account these notification deadlines and allow adequate lead time to properly finalize, adopt and communicate their 2014 health plan terms.

Since group health plan design decisions must be finalized to properly prepare the Minimum Value disclosures required in the Exchange Notice and the SBC and any material reductions required by the 60-day advance notice requirement, time running short to finalize 2014 plan designs.

Employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers are cautioned that their preparations should ensure both the necessary disclosures are made and that all disclosures are carefully prepared so that the notifications and the plan terms are consistent.

These preparations should include the critical review and coordination of the language of health plan documents and summary plan descriptions in light of these other notifications to identify and address potential differences between the government-mandated terms and language in the Glossary and SBC, the Exchange Notice and 60-day notice and the plan terms and summary plan description.

Arrangements also must include proper structuring and formatting of all of these documents and timely distribution in accordance with applicable regulations to participants and beneficiaries entitled to receive these documents in a manner that positions the employer, the group health plan and its fiduciaries and insurers to show compliance. In regard to distributions, parties planning to distribute notifications electronically need to ensure that any electronic or other methods of distribution meet applicable requirements and that the Health Plans timely send copies to all entitled parties – employees and dependents – in accordance with the applicable rules.

When planning these activities, group health plans, their sponsors, insurers and administrators also generally will want to minimize distribution costs by coordinating distribution of these ACA mandated notices with other notifications required for group health plans about privacy, coverage for newborns and mothers, mental health coverage, post-mastectomy reconstructive surgery and the like.

For Help or More Information

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

Nonexclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Impending 10/1 Exchange Notice & Other New Notice Deadlines Cut Time Short For Employers To Finalize 2014 Health Plan Terms & Contracts | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, Afffordable Care Act, Breah Notification, Covered Entities, Exchange Notice, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, OCR, Pay or Play, SBC | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plan Pays $1.2M+ HIPAA Settlement For Not Protecting PHI On Copiers

August 15, 2013

Affinity Health Plan, Inc. (Affinity) will pay $1,215,780 and take other corrective actions to settle alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules under the Affinity Resolution Agreement and CAP (Affinity Settlement) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The settlement comes as the September 24, 2013 deadline for health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates to update the written business associate agreements that HIPAA requires exist before business associates can be allowed to create, use, access or disclose personally identifiable health care information protected by HIPAA (PHI) to carry out HIPAA-covered functions on behalf of a Covered Entity to comply with changes to HIPAA’s implementing regulations adopted by OCR earlier this year. Health plans and other Covered Entities should take timely action to confirm that their existing procedures appropriate safeguards to protect PHI when using or disposing of copiers or other equipment or media as well as to implement business associate or other policy, procedures or training updates required to comply with the updated HIPAA rules.

HIPAA Updates Require Breach Notification, Tightened Other HIPAA Requirements

HIPAA generally requires that Covered Entities (and after September 24, 2013, their business associates) safeguard and restrict the use, access or disclosure of PHI as required by HIPAA. The HITECH Act amended these requirements to tighten certain of these requirements and restrictions, to expand the sanctions for violation of these requirements, to require Covered Entities and their business associates to provide notification of breaches of unsecured PHI to individuals whose information was breached, OCR and in some cases, the media, and made certain other changes to the original requirements of HIPAA. Earlier this year, OCR amended and restated its original Privacy and Security Rules here (2013 Final Rule) to comply with changes in the regulations resulting from these HITECH Act amendments beginning last March, but set the deadline for updating business associate agreements to meet these updated requirements at September 23, 2013.

The 2013 Final Rule and other OCR guidance makes clear that OCR expects Covered Entities and their business associates appropriately to safeguard PHI stored in computers, hard drives, and other digital media until it is properly disposed in accordance with the updated standards required by HIPAA as implemented under the 2013 Final Rule. HITECH Breach Notification Rule requires HIPAA-covered entities to tell HHS of a breach of unsecured protected health information, including breaches resulting from failure to properly secure PHI stored in digital format until it has been destroyed in accordance with the standards established by the 2013 Final Rule. OCR previously has sanctioned other Covered Entities for failed to properly destroy or safeguard PHI stored in digital format on computer or other equipment before abandoning or disposing of that equipment. The Affinity Settlement reaffirms OCR’s concern that Covered Entities meet these disposal requirements when replacing or abandoning equipment containing electronic PHI.

Affinity Settlement Highlights

According to the August 14, 2013 OCR announcement of the settlement, the settlement resulted from an investigation initiated after Affinity filed a breach report with OCR on April 15, 2010, as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act.)

In its breach report, Affinity indicated that a representative of CBS Evening News told Affinity that, as part of an investigatory report, CBS had purchased a photocopier previously leased by Affinity. CBS informed Affinity that the copier that Affinity had used contained confidential medical information on the hard drive.

Affinity estimated in its breach report that up to 344,579 individuals may have been affected by this breach. OCR’s investigation indicated that Affinity impermissibly disclosed the protected health information of these affected individuals when it returned multiple photocopiers to leasing agents without erasing the data contained on the copier hard drives. In addition, OCR reports its investigation revealed that Affinity failed to incorporate the electronic protected health information (ePHI) stored on photocopier hard drives in its analysis of risks and vulnerabilities as required by the Security Rule, and failed to implement policies and procedures when returning the photocopiers to its leasing agents.

In addition to the $1,215,780 payment, the Affinity Settlement includes a corrective action plan requiring Affinity to use its best efforts to retrieve all hard drives that were contained on photocopiers previously leased by the plan that remain in the possession of the leasing agent, and to take certain measures to safeguard all ePHI.

Learn From Affinity Lesson On Proper Disposal Procedures

Like prior OCR settlements stemming from inadequate security for PHI when transitioning equipment, media or facilities, the Affinity Settlement sends another reminder to Covered Entities and their business associates again of the importance of using appropriate procedures to protect or dispose of PHI when replacing or redeploying equipment or media that may contain PHI.

“This settlement illustrates an important reminder about equipment designed to retain electronic information: Make sure that all personal information is wiped from hardware before it’s recycled, thrown away or sent back to a leasing agent,” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “HIPAA covered entities are required to undertake a careful risk analysis to understand the threats and vulnerabilities to individuals’ data, and have appropriate safeguards in place to protect this information.”

OCR has published guidance concerning HIPAA’s requirements for the proper safeguarding and disposal of media and equipment in the 2013 Final Rule and other guidance. Concerning the proper disposition of copiers that may have PHI stored on their hard drives or in other digital formal, OCR in the Affinity Settlement recommended that Covered Entities and their associates also review the Federal Trade Commission’s Guidance On Safeguarding Sensitive Data Stored In The Hard Drives Of Digital Copiers and the National Institute of Standards and Technology has issued Guidance On Assessing The Security Of Multipurpose Office Machines. Covered Entities and their business associates should use this and other guidance to ensure that they can demonstrate that appropriate practices and procedures have been used to when disposing of or repurposing copies or other equipment that may contain electronic PHI.

HIPAA Regulation Updates Require Other Updates Beyond Disposal Procedures

In addition to addressing the concerns that lead to the Affinity Settlement, Covered Entities and their business associates also should verify that their practices, policies, privacy notices, business associate agreements, and training also are updated to comply with updates to the updated 2013 Final Rule adopted by OCR earlier this year here.

Since passage of the HITECH Act, OCR officials have warned Covered Entities to expect an omnibus restatement of its original regulations. While OCR had issued certain regulations implementing some of the HITECH Act changes, it waited to publish certain regulations necessary to implement other HITECH Act changes until it could complete a more comprehensive restatement of its previously published HIPAA regulations to reflect both the HITECH Act amendments and other refinements to its HIPAA Rules. The 2013 Regulations published today fulfill that promise by restating OCR’s HIPAA Regulations to reflect the HITECH Act Amendments and other changes and clarifications to OCR’s interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA.

For Help or More Information

If you need help monitoring or providing input on this legislation or to understand and respond to these or other legislation, laws and regulations, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters including extensive experience on HIPAA and other privacy and data security issues. Author of numerous prominent publications on HIPAA and other data security and privacy concerns impacting health plans, health care providers, employers, financial services providers and others, Ms. Stamer also serves as the scribe for the ABA JCEB annual Technical Sessions meeting with OCR and has represented numerous health plans, employers, health care providers and others in investigating, redressing, reporting data breach, identity theft and other compliance concerns.

She advises clients on, publishes, and speaks on HIPAA and other health plan, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For important information about this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Comments Off on Health Plan Pays $1.2M+ HIPAA Settlement For Not Protecting PHI On Copiers | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, Afffordable Care Act, Breah Notification, Covered Entities, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, OCR, Pay or Play, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department Sues Texas Bus Company For Illegal Discrimination Against Citizens When Hiring H-2B Program Workers

August 6, 2013

A federal lawsuit against Houston-based bus company Autobuses Ejecutivos LLC, d/b/a Omnibus Express, reminds U.S employers hiring foreign workers under the H-2B or other special worker visa programs to use care to ensure that they can prove that their need for foreign workers is not the result of recruitment and hiring practices that illegally discriminate against work-eligible members of the U.S. workforce already in the United States.

The Justice Department announced on August 6, 2013 that it and the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) are suing Omnibus Express for allegedly violating the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provisions by preferring to hire for bus driver positions temporary nonimmigrant visa holders on H-2B visas over work-eligible U.S. citizens, certain lawful permanent residents and other protected individuals.

H-2B Program Hiring Prohibited If Need Based On Illegal Discrimination

The H-2B program allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs only when there are not enough U.S. workers who are able, willing or qualified to do the temporary work. While H-2B program hiring can be invaluable when a legitimate need exists, businesses contemplating or using the program need to be prepared to show their need to hire workers on H-2B visas is not the result of discriminatory hiring practices prohibited by the INA or other federal employment discrimination laws.

The INA generally protects work-eligible individuals in the United States, such as U.S. citizens, certain lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees, from unlawful discrimination in hiring based on their citizenship status prohibiting employers from discriminating in hiring against these protected work-eligible workers based on their citizenship status.

Accordingly, while the H-2B program provides a valid opportunity to hire foreign workers consistent with the H-2B visa program requirements when in fact there are insufficient work-eligible, qualified applicants already in the U.S. to fill the position, employers hiring workers under the H-2B or other visa programs need to ensure that they are not inappropriately discriminating against U.S. citizens, permanent residents or other work-eligible individuals already in the U.S. in their recruitment and hiring practices when taking advantage of the H-2B program to hire workers.

In addition to the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA, hiring practices that discriminate in favor of hiring workers over other qualified applicants based on the respective citizenship, national origin, race or other protected status of the respective applicants or workers also can expose a business to liability under various other laws. In addition to suits brought by the Justice Department, prohibited discrimination by an employer under these other employment discrimination laws may expose a business to liability to actions brought by private litigants, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) or other agencies, or both.

Omnibus Express Suit Highlights Risks Of H-2B Visa Hiring Need Based On Illegal Discrimination

The Justice Department complaint charges that Omnibus Express failed to fulfill this obligation. It claims that Omnibus Express violated the INA by actively discouraging or failing to consider the applications of many qualified U.S. citizens and other protected individuals between September 2012 to February 2013 while at the same time petitioning the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for permission to hire up to 50 foreign workers on H-2B visas. The Justice Department alleges that Omnibus Express violated the INA by hiring 42 H-2B workers during this period based on its representation to the DOL and USCIS that there were not enough qualified workers in the United States to fill the 50 bus driver positions when in fact, its practices illegally discriminated against work-eligible U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents and other INA-protected individuals who could have filled the positions.

The Justice Department asks the court to redress these alleged violations of the INA by ordering Omnibus Express to pay back pay for injured parties and civil penalties prohibiting future discrimination by Omnibus Express, and ordering other injunctive relief.

INA Discrimination Prosecution Part Of Obama Administration’s Emphasis on Enforcing Discrimination Laws

Businesses also should keep in mind that the Justice Department’s prosecution of Omnibus Express for alleged illegal citizenship discrimination also is part of the Obama Administration’s larger agenda prioritizing the expansion of non-discrimination safeguards for protected classes and the enforcement of these non-discrimination laws.

Since Mr. Obama took office, the Administration has sought regulatory and statutory changes that expand the federal employment and other anti-discrimination for a broad range of groups. The Administration also continues to proactively seek to expand the individuals protected by these and other Federal anti-discrimination laws even as the Departments of Justice, Labor, Health & Human Services, Education, Housing & Urban Development and other federal agencies have expanded their investigation, prosecution and public outreach of these laws.

In light of these developments, businesses should recognize that this proactive anti-discrimination agenda makes it wise for private businesses and state and local government agencies to take greater care to prevent and position their organizations to defend against potential discrimination and retaliation claims under the INA and a broad range of other employment and other anti-discrimination laws.

While this activist agenda in the anti-discrimination law area merits tighter compliance and risk management for all organizations, government contractors or subcontractors particularly face heightened risk as a result of recent expansions to the reach and requirements of nondiscrimination requirements.

Act To Mitigate Citizenship, National Origin & Other Employment Discrimination Exposures

Accordingly, while the Omnibus Express particularly highlights the importance for businesses subject to U.S. law to use care before hiring foreign workers on H-2B or other special visas to ensure that they can demonstration the need for foreign workers does not stem from recruitment and hiring practices that illegally discriminate against applicants already in and eligible to work in the U.S. who would be qualified to fill those positions.

Furthermore, businesses should use care not to underestimate their exposure to liability from charges of illegal discrimination in violation of the INA or other federal employment discrimination laws. Prohibited discrimination against workers based on citizenship, national origin or other prohibited grounds exposes employers to private lawsuits by workers seeking damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other remedies. In addition to these private exposures, the suit against Omnibus Express shows that the readiness of the Justice Department to enforce the INA so that work-authorized individuals have equal access to employment in the United States free from prohibited discrimination based on citizenship.

Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division affirmed this commitment in the announcement of the Justice Department suit against Omnibus Express, stating “We are committed to enforcing the INA so that work-authorized individuals have equal access to employment in the United States.”

Accordingly, all businesses should make the tightened risk management of their INA anti-discrimination risks part of a broader emphasis on the prevention and management of their organization’s discrimination exposures generally.

As part of these risk management efforts, organizations should:

Review and update their understanding of current anti-discrimination rules under the INA and other laws;
Evaluate the adequacy of and tighten existing practices and documentation to mitigate exposures with discrimination and other laws;
Update and tighten management controls, investigation and other procedures to promote compliance with anti-discrimination policies and identify and mitigate exposures arising in the course of operations;
Conduct well-documented periodic training on these and other anti-discrimination compliance and risk management practices; and take other actions to monitor and enforce compliance by staff, contractors and others with whom they do business.

For Help With Compliance & Risk Management and Defense

If you need help in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 25 years of work helping private and governmental organizations and their management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; schools and other governmental agencies and others design, administer and defend innovative compliance, risk management, workforce, compensation, employee benefit, privacy, procurement and other management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend against employment and other anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation, union-management relations, wage and hour, and other labor and employment laws, other regulatory requirements, procurement, conflict of interest, discrimination management, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee, a member of the HR.com editorial advisory board, a past National Consultants Board Member and Region IV Chair for SHRM, past Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on workforce and risk management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here. For information about engaging Ms. Stamer for representation, training or other assistance, contact Ms. Stamer directly at (469) 767-8872.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer including:

Comments Off on Justice Department Sues Texas Bus Company For Illegal Discrimination Against Citizens When Hiring H-2B Program Workers | ADA, Affirmative Action, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, E-Verify, EEOC, Employers, Excise Tax, GINA, Government Contractors, Health Care Reform, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Citizenship discriminaton, Employer Liability., employment discrimination, H-2A Visa, H-2B, Immigration, INA, National Origin Discrimination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Legislation Proposes To Change Obama Care Full-Time Employee Definition

August 5, 2013

Businesses and workers concerned that the definition of “full-time” employment as 30 hours per week in the “pay-or-play” penalties of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to by the public as “Obamacare”) is hurting American workers may want to share their input on recently introduced legislation that would raise the number of hours an employee must work to qualify as “full-time” for purposes of the pay-or-pay penalty from 30 to 40 hours per week with members of the key Congressional Committees that will decide whether this legislation advances when Congress returns from its Summer vacation.

Growing concern about the costs and other implications of Obamacare are fueling renewed debate in Congress about the pay-or-play and other provisions of Obamacare. Only 57 days before enrollment in coverage slated to be available as an alternative to employer coverage beginning January 1, 2014 through new federally mandated health insurance exchanges is prompting renewed debate in Congress about the full-time employee, pay-or play and other provisions of Obamacare. As Congress takes its summer break, both sides are talking and listening to voters about health care reform. Concerned parties should share their input on Congress during this break to help shape the decisions Congress makes when it returns to work in September.

“Full-Time Employee” Definition Key Element Of Employer’s “Pay-Or Play” Liability

Originally scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014 until the Administration on July 2, 2013 announced it would not enforce its provisions until 2015, the employer “shared responsibility” or “pay-or-play” rules of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 4980H enacted as part of Obamacare have been widely criticized as killing jobs and reducing employment.

When effective, Code Section 4980H will require that businesses employing 50 or more “full-time” employees (Large Employers”) pay a tax penalty calculated in accordance with Code Section 4980H unless the Large Employer offers each “full-time employee” the opportunity to enroll himself and each of his dependent children in coverage under a qualifying health plan that meets the minimum essential coverage, minimum value and affordability standards of Obamacare.

Under the current provisions of Code Section 4980H, the amount of the penalty that a Large Employer must pay is:

$168 per employee per month for any month that the employer doesn’t offer minimum essential coverage to each full-time employee and has at least one full-time employee who receives a subsidy or tax credit for enrolling in coverage under one of the health insurance exchanges created by Obamacare (Subsidized Employee);
$250 per employee month multiplied by the number of full-time employees of the business that are Subsidized Employees if the employer offers coverage under the health plan that provides minimum essential coverage but the health plan fails to meet the minimum value or affordability standards of Code Section 4980H; or
$0 if the employer either offers health plan coverage that meets the minimum essential coverage, minimum value and affordability requirements of Code Section 4980H or doesn’t have any full-time employees who are Subsidized Employees.

30-Hour Full-Time Definition Reducing Full-Time Employment Opportunities

As the original January 1, 2014 implementation date of Code Section 4980H has approached, original largely Republican concern about its unintended adverse impact on employment increasingly has grown amid widespread reports that businesses are avoiding hiring and reducing employee hours to minimize exposures to Code Section 4980H-driven costs. See, e.g. Obamacare’s Employer Penalty And Its Impact On Temporary Workers; States Cutting Employee Hours To Avoid Obama Care Costs; Americans Who Voted For Obama Now Seeing Weekly Job Hours Slashed Below 30 As Obamacare Kicks In. Particularly embarrassing among these reports include the recent report that even a call center hired by the Administration to help promote enrollment coverage offered through the Obamacare-created exchanges is limiting the hours its employees can work to under 30 hours per week. ObamaCare Call Center To Keep Employees Under 30 Hours/Week.

As businesses already struggling to deal with a tough economy moved to minimize the number of their full-time employees, even labor unions that originally supported Obamacare joined the cry for reform of its provisions to mitigate employment losses resulting from employer efforts to minimize Code Section 4980H exposures. See Companies Cut Hours Of Full-Time Employees To Avoid Providing Health Care Under New Rules.

S. 1188/H.R. 2575 Would Make Full-Time Mean 40 Hours Per Week

Prompted by growing concern about the apparent adverse impact of Obamacare on job opportunities for hourly workers, legislation now is pending in both the House and Senate to amend the Obamacare’s definition of “full-time.” In June, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN) Collins introduced a bill to amend Code Section 4980H to change the definition of full-time employee for purpose of the shared responsibility provisions of Obamacare, S. 1188: Forty Hours Is Full Time Act to change the definition of “full-time” from 30 to 40 hours per week and the number of hours counted toward a “full-time equivalent” employee to 174 hours per month. Representative Todd Young (R-IN) then introduced a similar provision in the House on June 28, 2013, H.R. 2575, Save American Workers Act of 2013.

H.R. 2575 has garnered the support of 144 Cosponsors. H.R. 2575. Following its introduction, the House assigned H.R. 2575 to the House Ways and Means Committee, whose members now must decide when and if the bill will advance in the House. Key members of the House Ways and Means Committee who will make this decision on include the following Committee Members: Dave Camp; Sander Levin; Charles Boustany Jr.; Kevin Brady (Chair, Subcommittee on Health); Sam Johnson; Devin Nunes; David Reichert (Chair, Subcommittee on Human Resources); Patrick “Pat” Tiberi; Xavier Becerra; Diane Black Earl Blumenauer; Vern Buchanan; Joseph Crowley; Danny Davis; Lloyd Doggett; Jim Gerlach; Tim Griffin; Lynn Jenkins; Mike Kelly; Ron Kind; John Larson; John Lewis; Kenny Marchant; Jim McDermott; Richard Neal; Bill Pascrell Jr.; Erik Paulsen; Tom Price; Charles Rangel; Tom Reed II, James Renacci; Peter Roskam; Paul Ryan; Aaron Schock; Allyson Schwartz; Adrian Smith; Linda Sánchez; Mike Thompson; and the Bill’s sponsor, Todd Young.

Although introduced before H.R. 2575, S. 1188 to date has drawn less interest among members of the Senate. The Senate referred S. 1188 to the Senate Finance Committee, where to date, that Committee has not taken any further action. It presently has 8 cosponsors, 7 of which are Republicans. See S. 1181 Cosponsors. With Democrats the Majority Party in the Senate, many expect the bill to require significant public pressure and support for the Committee to report the bill out from the Committee, which presently is Chaired by Democrat Max Baucus. Other Senate Finance Committee members include Orrin Hatch; Michael Bennet; Sherrod Brown; Robert “Bob” Casey Jr.; John “Jay” Rockefeller IV; Debbie Stabenow; Ron Wyden; Richard Burr; Maria Cantwell; Benjamin Cardin; John Cornyn; Michael Crapo; Michael Enzi; Charles “Chuck” Grassley; John “Johnny” Isakson; Robert “Bob” Menéndez; Bill Nelson; Robert “Rob” Portman; Pat Roberts; Charles Schumer; John Thune; and Patrick “Pat” Toomey.

This past weekend, S. 1188’s sponsor, Maine Senator Susan Collins sought to beef up support for the bill. In urging support for her bill, Senator Collins said the health care law’s 30-hour per week definition kills jobs. “Obamacare is actually discouraging small businesses from creating jobs and hiring new employees,” she said. “The law also has perverse incentives for employers to reduce the number of hours that their employees can work.”

How To Contact Key Committees To Show Support or Share Other Feedback

Individuals wishing to share their support or other input about S. 1181 with the Senate Finance Committee can call (202) 224-4515 or send their written input to the Senate Committee on Finance members via fax to (202) 228-0554.

Support or other input on H.R. 2575 should be sent via fax to House Ways & Means Committee members via fax to (202) 225-2610 or by calling the Committee office at (202) 225-3625.

Committee members and other members of Congress also generally can be contacted via e-mail through the link provided on each member’s webpage. Because security precautions generally delay delivery of mail to members of Congress for 7-10 days, concerned individuals generally are encouraged to contact the Committee or other members of Congress via fax or e-mail.

Stay In Touch & Join The Discussion On Health Care Reform

Want to stay in touch with the latest developments on health care reform and get involved with helping to share meaningful improvements in U.S. health care and workforce policy and our health care and health care insurance system? The Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations. We also encourage you to participate in our Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment initiative here to share ideas, discuss issues, and access and share tools and other resources.

For Help or More Information

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

1 Comment | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, Afffordable Care Act, Health Care Reform, health reform, Pay or Play | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers & Insurers Reminded Of July 31 Deadline To Pay New ACA-Required PCORI Fees

July 26, 2013

Employers sponsoring self-insured group health plans and insurers are reminded that the deadline to report and pay the fee new fees required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) to help fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is July 31, 2013.

The PCORI fee, required to be reported annually on the second quarter Form 720 and paid by its due date, July 31, is based on the average number of lives covered under the policy or plan. The annually required PCORI fee applies to policy or plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October. 1, 2019.

The PCORI fee is just one of a number of new fees and costs that ACA imposes upon employers and individuals as part of the health care reforms enacted under ACA.

Employers of more than 50 full-time employees recently received a temporary retrieve from another of these looming potential fees, the employer “shared responsibility” payment that ACA added to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) under new Code Section 4980H.

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that it will delay until 2015 enforcement of the employer shared responsibility or “pay-or-play” rules of Code Section 4980H. See July 2 Blog and Notice 2013-45. Slated prior to the delayed enforcement announcement to take effect January 1, 2014, the employer shared responsibility rules generally will require employers which individually or collectively with other commonly controlled or affiliated employers employee 50 or more full-time employees that do not offer group health coverage that meets the minimum essential coverage, minimum value and affordability standards of the Affordable Care Act to pay an “assessment” that the Supreme Court ruled last year to be a tax, as well as to comply with certain reporting requirements.

While Notice 2013-45 gives large more time to prepare to comply with Code Section 4980H, it provides no relief from the obligation to pay the PCORI fee or from other group health plan mandates imposed by ACA or other applicable federal laws. Consequently, as businesses continue to prepare for the delayed implementation of Code Section 4980H in 2015, they also need to ensure that they timely pay any required PCORI fees and meet other applicable federal group health plan mandates as they continue to diligently prepare to deal with Code Section 4980H.

While businesses work to meet current and impending federal health plan responsibilities, most business leaders also will want to continue to closely monitor and provide regular input to members of Congress and regulators on proposed regulatory and enforcement guidance and potential Congressional amendments to the Affordable Care Act or other health care or tax policy reforms.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with preparing these or other ACA compliance or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

Comments Off on Employers & Insurers Reminded Of July 31 Deadline To Pay New ACA-Required PCORI Fees | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, Afffordable Care Act, Health Care Reform, health reform, Pay or Play | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

“Pay Or Play” Reprieve Still Leaves Employers Facing Challenging 2014 Health Care Reform Deadlines

July 11, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) yesterday (July 10, 2013) shared its first “formal” guidance officially implementing the Obama Administration’s decision to delay until 2015 enforcement of certain of the employer shared responsibility or “pay-or-play” rules of new Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 4980H first informally announced by Department of Treasury Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Mark Mazar in this July 2 Blog.

Notice 2013-45 outlines the specific “transition relief” rules under which the IRS says it will forego during 2014 enforcement of the employer shared responsibility penalty tax rules and associated and information reporting requirements that are slated to take effect for single employers or groups of commonly controlled or affiliated employers that employ 50 or more full-time employees (Large Employers) beginning January 1, 2014 as part of the sweeping health care reforms enacted under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act). Even with the extension of time allowed by Notice 2013-45 to prepare to comply with Code Section 4980H, however, employers and insurers have much to do to prepare.

The first priority for employers wishing to take advantage of added time to comply with Affordable Care Act’s pay or play penalty to maximize their planning opportunities and to minimize their potential Code Section 4980H consequences should be to clean up worker classifications, to track all hours worked for all employees and collect all other relevant employee data.

Notice 2013-45 Confirms IRS Won’t Enforce Code Section 4980H In 2014

The transitional relief in Notice 2013-45 comes as businesses have struggled to understand and come to grips with the requirements of new Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H that beginning January 1, 2014, a Large Employer calculate and pay the applicable “assessable payment” tax under Section 4980H for each month that it fails to offer each full-time employee group health plan coverage meeting Code Section 4980H’s “minimum essential coverage,” “minimum value” and “affordability standards” if any full-time employee receives a subsidy for enrolling in coverage through a health insurance exchange.

Specifically, Notice 2013-45 waives IRS enforcement only for 2014 and only of:

The information reporting requirements applicable to insurers, self-insuring employers, and certain other providers of minimum essential coverage (MEC) under Code Section 6055 (6055 Reporting);
The information reporting requirements applicable to applicable large employers under Code Section 6056 (6056 Reporting); and
The obligation to pay tax penalties under the employer shared responsibility provisions under Code Section 4980H (4980H Tax).

This relief is limited in both scope and duration. Notably, Notice 2013-58 states:

Its provisions have no effect on the effective date or application of the multitude of other new mandates that have or will kick in coming months in connection with the impending 2014 Affordable Care Act reforms; and
The IRS plans that the tax penalty provisions of Code Section 4980H and the information reporting requirements of Code Sections 6055 and 6056 “will be fully effective for 2015.”

While the IRS is promising in Notice 2013-45 that the IRS will not require any payments by any employer under Code Section 4980H for 2014, it also urges Large Employers other affected entities to prepare for 2015 by voluntarily complying with the information reporting provisions (once the information reporting rules have been issued) in 2014 including conducting “real-world testing of reporting systems and plan designs” and continuing employer-provided coverage.

Relief Leaves Large Employers & Other Employers With Much Work To Do

While Notice 2013-45 gives Large Employers more time to prepare to comply as well as to communicate with the IRS about the need and options for simplification, employers should continue to aggressively prepare for compliance. The IRS says it intends to fully enforce the rules against Large Employers beginning in 2015 and to implement other Affordable Care Act provisions. Consequently, employers that know or question if they may be Large Employers, their insurers, service providers and advisors should continue to diligently prepare to deal with Code Section 4980H, as well as other federal health plan rules. Accordingly, Large Employers, their insurers and advisors could continue to diligently prepare to prepare to manage their impending Code Section 4980H responsibilities and liabilities.

1. Start With Worker Classification, Time & Income Data Collection & Recordkeeping

Employers wishing to use this reprieve to their best advantage should start by ensuring that they clean up and tighten their worker classification and time tracking practices. This should start with auditing the classification of all workers providing services as employees, contractors or otherwise to be sure that they are properly classified. Code Section 4980H takes into account all workers who are under they facts and circumstances test applied by the Code “common law employees” for purposes of deciding what employers are covered by Code Section 4980H and calculating the penalties, if any owning. Many businesses mistakenly fail to recognize a wide range of workers considered by the business to work as contractors, leased employees or in other capacities are likely to be considered by the IRS to be common law employees for purposes of these rules. Ensuring that the business has properly accounted for all workers that the IRS is likely to view as common law employees is essential to any reliable planning or cost projection.

Beyond having an appropriate understanding of what individuals are considered common law employees, businesses also should seek to track accurately all hours worked, regardless of whether the employees are non-exempt workers that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires the employer pay hourly, or exempt employees under the FLSA that the employer pays on a salaried, commission or other non-hourly basis. Under existing Code Section 4980H rules, employers that don’t have accurate time records for employees must rely upon safe-harbor rules for identifying workers that are considered full-time. These safe harbor rules credit hours in such a way that tends to overstate the number of full-time employees and full-time equivalent employees.

In workforces where many employees many receive significant additional family income from the earnings of a spouse, another job or other sources, employers also may want to add processes to verify actual household adjusted gross income (HAGI) for purposes of identifying which of its full-time employees, whose HAGI actually is below the 400 percent of the poverty level required to qualify to receive subsidies when enrolling in coverage through a Health Insurance Exchange.

2. Other To Dos

Other helpful preparations also generally will include:

Seeking and monitoring developing guidance about the meaning of minimum essential coverage and other associated rules;
Providing meaningful input to the IRS, the Department of Health & Human Services, Congress and others on the need for and options to simplify time and other data and reporting requirements, employer interactions and data requests for verification of exchange subsidy eligibility and other purposes;
Evaluating and adjusting workforce and benefit practices, time and other record keeping systems, and plan designs;
Evaluating workflow and staffing practices to determine the potential advantages of using certain measurement, stability or administrative periods, safe harbors and other options for purposes of applying Code Section 4980H, making changes in workforce or staffing practices, redesigning benefits or other adjustments; and
Working with management, vendors and others to identify and change plan designs; and
Completing other preparations to cope with the rules.

While continuing these preparations to comply with Code Section 4980H in 2015, Large Employers as well as other businesses also need to get busy finalizing preparations for the upcoming 2014 plan year, particularly in the face of fast approaching notice deadlines. Employers are under the gun to finalize and implement plan design, vendor and other decisions and complete other preparations to prepare and deliver these and other materials on time, updated in time to meet new or revised federal health plan requirements under the Affordable Care Act and other laws. The impending Affordable Care Act-imposed deadlines to deliver newly mandated exchange notices by October 1 and updated “Summaries of Benefits and Coverage” or “SBCs” by the beginning of their next enrollment period significantly shortens the time for employers to finalize their plan designs. Under existing SBC rules, employers that amend their plans after the beginning of an annual enrollment period must update and resend SBCs to plan members. Furthermore, Federal rules also now generally require health plan administrators provide 60 days advance notice to plan members of plan amendments that materially reduce coverage or benefits. Therefore all employers regardless of size will want to ensure that their plans and associated contracts are finalized quickly to adequately meet these requirements without incurring the added expense of updating and redistributing their SBCs.

As part of these efforts, all businesses generally should act quickly and diligently to:

Carefully credential and contract with insurers, administrators, consultants and other plan service providers and advisors to document expectations and commitments about compliance, quality assurance, fiduciary and other responsibility and status, indemnification and other accountability and other matters including updated business associate commitments where required to comply with recently changes in the privacy rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act generally required no later than September 24, 2013 for all existing plan business associates);
Audit within the scope of attorney-client privilege all existing employee and alternative workforce arrangements and patterns to confirm that all common law employees properly are identified and classified and that appropriate arrangements are in place to track and document time and other relevant information to position the business reliably its responsibilities and defend its action for Code Section 4980H and other federal health plan, Fair Labor Standards Act and other compliance purposes;
Consult with legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege about any legally required or otherwise desired adjustments to worker classification or other workforce practices to minimize Affordable Care Act or other liabilities;
Finalize decisions about what health benefits, if any that their business will offer to what employees in the upcoming plan years and carefully contract with vendors, update plan documents, the SBCs, summary plan descriptions and other materials for the upcoming plan year before the first day of the next enrollment period;
Carefully amend and update plan documents, summary plan descriptions, SBCs, privacy practices notices and other required notices, communications and forms to the extent possible, before the upcoming enrollment period to minimize inconsistencies, and to be able to package required notices, summary plan descriptions and other communication and enrollment materials to take advantage of the opportunity to minimize distribution expenses;
Complete the necessary decisions and arrangements to prepare and send the exchange notice that the Affordable Care Act requires be delivered for the first time by October 1, 2013; and
Finalize other preparations for the upcoming plan year.

Monitor & Provide Input On Proposed Tax & Health Care Reform

While businesses work to meet current and impending federal health plan responsibilities, most business leaders also will want to continue to closely monitor and provide regular input to members of Congress and regulators on proposed amendments to the Affordable Care Act or other health care or tax policy reforms.

Despite a projected $ 5 billion reduction in federal budget revenue from non-enforcement of Code Section 4980H in 2014, the Administration is moving ahead aggressively to implement other Affordable Care Act reforms as scheduled. Notice 2013-45 states that the Administration plans to continue to provide subsidies pursuant to the Affordable Care Act for individuals earning less than 400% of the Federal poverty level who enroll in health coverage through a Health Insurance Exchange, which the Administration has rebranded and now refers to as “Marketplaces.” Furthermore, the Administration separately announced on July 5, 2013 that individuals will be allowed to apply for and claim these subsidies based on an “honor system” in 2014; the Administration will not require verification of eligibility.

Even before the IRS announced the relief now formalized by Notice 2013-45, the rising federal budget costs of the Affordable Care Act was fueling concern. In March, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that after having already spent more than $394 million on exchange efforts, the Obama administration needs Congress to approve an extra $1.5 billion added to the budget to cover the additional $2 billion that the GAO projects the Administration will need over the next fiscal year to create and run the federal exchanges. See GAO Report and GAO Report. Foregoing enforcement of Code Section 4980H, verification of subsidy eligibility and other unexpected costs resulting from glitches in the preparation and rollout of the Affordable Care Act reforms for 2014 are adding to the growing costs and projected budgetary impact of the Affordable Care Acts on the federal budget. With existing budget shortfalls already fueling pressure for increased tax revenues, businesses and individuals concerned about tax liability will want to carefully monitor and provide input to Congressional leaders on health care and tax reform.

For Help or More Information

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

HHS Continues Preparations For New Health Insurance Marketplace By Awarding Grants To Promote Kids Enrollment

July 2, 2013

As part of its continuing efforts to promote enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace slated to take effect January 1, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today (July 2, 2013) announced the award of nearly $32 million in grants for efforts to identify and enroll children eligible for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Connecting Kids to Coverage Outreach and Enrollment Grants were awarded to 41 state agencies, community health centers, school-based organizations and non-profit groups in 22 states; two grantees are multistate organizations. The announcement comes as employers and others continue to express concern about the sufficiency of preparations and HHS’ recent rollout of online tools to aid consumers enroll in the new Health Care Marketplace scheduled to launch January 1, 2014 as part of the continuing implementation of reforms enacted as part of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).

Announced Grants Target Increased CHIP & Medicaid Enrollment In Preparation For Health Care Marketplace

In amounts ranging from $190,000 to $1 million out of the $140 million included in the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) of 2009 for enrollment and renewal outreach, HHS Reports the grants awarded to the grantees listed here focus on 5 areas:

Engaging schools in outreach, enrollment and retention activities (9 awards);
Reducing health coverage disparities by reaching out to subgroups of children that are less likely to have health coverage (8 awards);
Streamlining enrollment for individuals participating in other public benefit programs such as nutritional or other assistance programs (3 awards);
Improving application assistance resources to provide high quality, reliable Medicaid and CHIP enrollment and renewal services in local communities (13 awards); and
Training communities to help families understand the new application and enrollment system and to deliver effective assistance to families with children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP (8 awards).

According to HHS, the grants will build on the Secretary’s Connecting Kids to Coverage Challenge to find and enroll all eligible children and support outreach strategies that have been shown to be successful.

According to HHS, Connecting Kids to Coverage Outreach and Enrollment Grant Awards (Cycle III) Efforts to streamline Medicaid and CHIP enrollment and renewal practices, combined with robust outreach activities, have helped reduce the number of uninsured children. Since 2008, HHS claims 1.7 million children have gained coverage and the rate of uninsured children has dropped to 6.6 percent in 2012

“Today’s grants will ensure that more children across the nation have access to the quality health care they need,” said Secretary Sebelius. “We are drawing from successful children’s health coverage outreach and enrollment efforts to help promote enrollment this fall in Medicaid and the new Health Insurance Marketplace.”

Continuing Preparations For New Health Care Marketplace

The grant awards are part of a much broader effort by HHS to prepare Americans to enroll in the newly reformed Health Insurance Marketplace that the Obama Administration is working to implement as part of the sweeping reforms enacted by the Affordable Care Act.

Enrollment is the Health Insurance Exchanges also to be included in the new federal health care marketplace is scheduled to begin October 1, 2013. In anticipation of this deadline, HHS recently also announced its rollout of new consumer health care education and decision-making tools on its newly designed www.healthcare.gov website.

In announcing its launch of its Health Insurance Marketplace educational tools here on June 24, 2013, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) repeated recent claims that HHS and the states are on target to begin enrollment on October 1, 2013 in the federal and state health care exchanges now retitled “Health Insurance Marketplace” by the Administration, to meet other key milestones and to the beginning coverage under the newly created Health Insurance Marketplaces beginning January 1, 2014.

As part of these preparations, HHS kicked off an aggressive Health Insurance Marketplace education effort by announcing the deploying of with newly designed “consumer-focused” HealthCare.gov website and the 24-hours-a-day consumer call center that HHS claims provide all the necessary tools to prepare Americans for open enrollment and ultimately sign up for private health insurance.

While HHS says its tools and other preparations will get the Health Care Marketplaces and Americans ready for the conversion of the U.S. health care system slated to begin January 1, 2014, others are less confident. For instance, GAO officials recently found that major work that federal and state officials must complete to timely begin enrollment by October 1 remains unfinished, making it unclear if they will meet the impending October 1, 2013 enrollment kickoff deadline. See GAO Report and GAO Report.

Meanwhile, employers of 50 or more full-time employees and others also have complained that delayed and incomplete guidance has prevented them from understanding their obligations and moving to complete preparations to comply with the new employer mandates by delaying private market reforms and employer preparations. These problems have been further complicated by recent media coverage and public debate about the access to sensitive personal health care, financial information and the role of the Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies under the Affordable Care Act following recent charges that certain Internal Revenue Service officials improperly targeted certain charitable organization and their organizers as part of application approval and audits.

Despite these concerns, HHS is marching ahead on its efforts to implement the law by launching these and other enrollment and educational outreach.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with preparing these or other Affordable Care Act compliance or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

Comments Off on HHS Continues Preparations For New Health Insurance Marketplace By Awarding Grants To Promote Kids Enrollment | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, GINA, Group Health plans, Health Care Marketplace, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plans, HIPAA, Privacy, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Touts Enrollment Tools, Says Exchange Enrollment Ready Despite GAO Concerns

June 26, 2013

Despite growing concerns expressed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and others about arrangements and the need for added funding to prepare for the massive conversion in the U.S. health care system slated to take effect January 1, 2014 under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (“ACA), Obama Administration officials are continuing to claim readiness to begin enrollment of Americans In federal health care marketplace on schedule on October 1, 2013 and to meet other crucial deadlines necessary to effectively implement the next wave of ACA’s health care reforms in the Department of Health & Human Service’s rollout of new consumer health care education and decision-making tools on its newly designed healthcare.gov website.

According to HHS, “The new tools will help Americans understand their choices and select the coverage that best suits their needs when open enrollment in the new Health Insurance Marketplace begins October 1.”

According to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, “In October, HealthCare.gov will be the online destination for consumers to compare and enroll in affordable, qualified health plans.”

Between now and the start of open enrollment, HHS says the Marketplace call center will provide educational information and, beginning Oct. 1, 2013, will help consumers with application completion and plan choice. In addition to English and Spanish, the call center provides assistance in more than 150 languages through an interpretation and translation service. Customer service representatives are available for assistance via a toll-free number at 1-800-318-2596 and hearing impaired callers using TTY/TDD technology can dial 1-855-889-4325 for assistance.

17 states committed to run their own exchanges have missed March 2013 deadlines on 44% of key activities;
Officials creating the small business exchanges still must review plans and train and certify the “navigators” that are supposed to help companies and individuals enroll in plans and complete other key arrangements;
A federal the “data hub” designed to help individuals determine their eligibility and enroll in plans offered through the exchanges has only undergone initial testing; and
The current planned process for coordination of data between employer and insurer plans and the health care exchanges to evaluate eligibility of the millions of Americans expected to apply for subsidies for enrolling in coverage through the exchange presently is for HHS to contact employers by telephone employers to ask if that employer asked that employee enrollee minimum essential coverage providing minimum essential value at an affordable cost that would disqualify the applicant for the subsidy.

Meanwhile, the GAO Reports also provide a glimpse at what the federal government has spent so far on preparing the federal exchanges and the data hub. They indicate that hat the Obama Administration had approximately $394 million on exchange efforts as of March 2013 including:

$84 million to CGI Federal, which is building the federal exchange computer infrastructure;
$55 million to Quality Software Services, which is building the data hub; and
$38 million to Booz Allen Hamilton to provide technical assistance for enrollment and eligibility.

Contractor Booz Allen Hamilton recently has drawn attention as the National Security Association contractor through which the notorious fugitive Edward Snowden allegedly accessed information he disclosed to the public about NSA surveillance of “big data” on Americans and others through the internet.

The GAO also estimated the Obama administration needs Congress to approve an extra $1.5 billion from the budget to provide the Administration with the additional $2 billion that the GAO projects the Administration will need over the next fiscal year to create and operate the federal exchanges. Existing budget concerns make it unlikely that Congress will approve these extra funds.

For Help or More Information

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

Comments Off on HHS Touts Enrollment Tools, Says Exchange Enrollment Ready Despite GAO Concerns | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, GINA, Group Health plans, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Privacy, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Id & Manage Hidden Employee Benefit Exposures In Business Insolvency Or Other Transactions

June 5, 2013

The June 4, 2013 announcement of the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) provides a timely reminder to businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans, their owners and management, plan fiduciaries, banks, administrative service providers and other plan vendors, employee benefit plan and bankruptcy trustees, corporate receivers, creditors, and others looking to expedite the windup of abandoned 401(k), profit-sharing and other individual account pension plans of the challenges that can result when employee benefit plan responsibilities are mishandled when companies fail or experience other significant events, as well as the availability of tools to help mitigate or prevent these challenges through responsible proactive action.

Hidden Employee Benefit Exposures For Unwary Abound For Parties In Business Insolvency Or Other Transactions

A complex maze of ERISA, tax and other rules make, administration and termination of employee benefit plans a complicated matter. When the company sponsoring a plan experiences a significant workforce or other restructuring, becomes distressed, goes bankrupt or liquidates, merges, sells assets or engages in other significant business transaction impacting the plans or its workforce, the rules, as well as the circumstances, can create a liability and operational quagmire for everyone from the sponsoring business, its management, buyers, vendors, plan fiduciaries, plan participants and beneficiaries, related entities, asset purchasers and others. While tough economic times may tempt business leaders to cut corners, more than 3o years of litigation and enforcement precedent make clear that cutting corners on the assessment and handling of employee benefit and other workforce responsibilities amid business distress or in other business transactions or events presents risks for all parties involved. See e.g., Tough Times Are No Excuse For ERISA Shortcuts; Mishandling Employee Benefit Obligations Creates Big Liabilities For Distressed Businesses & Their Business Leaders. While many business leaders and plan fiduciaries lack a strong understanding of these rules and their implications in times of business or benefit plan distress or other significant business transactions, even those experienced with these concerns need to use caution to understand and respond to the series of ongoing changes in these rules, regulations and precedent that impact on the handling of plan related responsibilities in these and other special situations.

The Internal Revenue Code (Code) requires contains a maze of requirements that companies sponsoring pension, profit-sharing, health and other employee benefit plans, their plans, and plan administrators must follow when maintaining, administering, or terminating these plans including in many instances, special rules on the termination of the plans, distribution of assets, and the liabilities that attach to affiliated companies, successors, and assets resulting from transactions involving employee benefit plans or their sponsors.

In addition to the Code’s rules, companies and other individuals that in name or in function have or exercise discretionary responsibility or authority over the maintenance, administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA also generally must meet ERISA’s high standards for carrying out these duties based on their functional ability to exercise discretion over these matters, whether or not they have been named as fiduciaries formally. Under many circumstances these rules, or the handling of transactions can broaden the scope of responsibility or create exposures for a surprising range of parties dealing with the plan sponsor, related corporations or their stock, assets, benefit plans or workforce in corporate bankruptcies, mergers, asset or stock acquisitions, liquidations or other transactions.

Beyond these basic tax and fiduciary obligations, ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) create additional responsibilities and liabilities for when dealing with defined benefit or other pension plans subject to ERISA’s minimum funding and plan termination rules that when violated trigger a plethora of funding and notification obligations, penalties, liens on assets, and other obligations that can create significant traps for unwary plan fiduciaries and administrators, the sponsoring corporation, its management, affiliates and successors, as well as creditors or purchasers of stock or assets and others dealing with them.

Despite these well-documented responsibilities and a well-established pattern of enforcement by the Department of Labor, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, Internal Revenue Service and private plaintiffs, many businesses and business leaders fail to appropriately understand these and other basic responsibilities and liabilities associated with the establishment, administration, termination and windup of employee benefit plans and other details about how their or others mishandling of employee benefit plan related responsibilities can undermine business goals and create unanticipated liability exposures.

Frequently, companies sponsoring their employee benefit plans and their executives mistakenly assume that they can rely upon vendors and advisors to ensure that their programs are appropriately established. The establishment and maintenance of these arrangements with limited review or oversight by the sponsoring company or its management team can be risky.

In other instances, businesses and their leaders do not realize that ERISA’s functional definition to determine fiduciary status means that individuals participating in discretionary decisions about the employee benefit plan, as well as the plan sponsor, may bear liability under many commonly occurring situations if appropriate care is not exercised to protect participants or beneficiaries in these plans.

In yet other instances, purchasers, related entities, bankruptcy trustees and creditors or others don’t appreciate the way their own or others mishandling of employee benefit plan obligations or exposures can impact their transactions and associated risks.

Proactive Action Can Mitigate Exposures & Costs

For this reason, companies providing employee benefits and their management, service providers, and related entities and the businesses dealing with them need a clear understanding of the rules and responsibilities Federal law imposes on the funding, administration and termination of these programs, how these rules can impact their responsibilities and goals, and the steps necessary to avoid or mitigate exposures likely to result if they or others mishandle employee benefit plan related responsibilities or assets and how to avoid or mitigate these concerns.

The challenges of winding up an abandoned plan discussed in the EBSA news release yesterday highlights just one of these complications, the problem of dealing with abandoned plans.

When companies and their management abandon plans, they leave their plans, participants and beneficiaries, service providers and others in limbo, without the authority or funds to wind up the plans. When employers abandon their individual account pension plans, custodians such as banks, insurers and mutual fund companies are left holding the assets of these abandoned plans but without the authority to terminate such plans and make benefit distributions even in response to participant demands. Service providers often find themselves in the legally awkward situation of having continuing plan responsibilities without necessary direction or compensation for performance. Meanwhile, participants and beneficiaries can’t manage, access or often even get information about their funds until the situation resolves. Dealing with these issues usually requires cumbersome, time-consuming and costly processes often requiring complex, lengthy, highly formalistic and expensive judicial and administrative procedures to resolve while fiduciary, tax and other liabilities mount. Meanwhile, participants and beneficiaries often lose access to their accounts or benefits or even see plan value decline as plan assets that could go to benefits are diverted to cover administrative costs of winding up the plan.

The EBSAs abandoned plan program is just one of many examples of tools that parties struggling with these issues can use to mitigate these challenges and exposures. EBSA uses its abandoned plan program to facilitate a voluntary efficient process for winding up the affairs of abandoned individual account plans so that benefit distributions are made to participants and beneficiaries when this occurs.

The EBSA Abandoned Plan News Release and the EBSA’s related response Response to ADP/JP Morgan published June 4, 2013 show an example of how EBSA used its abandoned plan program to give critical relief to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and ADP Inc. to use to wind up certain abandoned plans without exhausting the 90-day waiting period that ordinarily applies before the termination of a retirement plan based on the best interest of participants pursuant to 29 CFR §2578.1. By exercising its discretion to waive the 90-day notice period, the EBSA allowed JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and ADP Inc. to terminate immediately and wind up approximately 180 defined contribution pension plans abandoned due to corporate crises or neglect.

Requesting relief from the EBSA like that granted to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and ADP Inc. in the announcement made yesterday is just one of various types of relief that legal counsel experienced with dealing with workforce and employee benefit plan challenges that can arise when companies or their plans become inadequately funded, bankrupt, or experience other significant transactions or events, can use to help debtors, and other plan sponsors, their management, affiliates, successors, buyers, plan fiduciaries, vendors, bankruptcy creditors and trustees.

Experienced counsel can help companies understand and negotiate the complex rules of the EBSA, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and the Internal Revenue Service governing dealings with these plans and where appropriate and available by taking advantage of relief or other options to mitigate these challenges. Involving experienced counsel to explore and use these options early can help all parties get participants and beneficiaries their benefits while minimizing legal risks, time and expenses associated with the wind up of these troubled or abandoned plans. Even where special dispensation is not available, the early involvement of experienced legal counsel as early as possible after the possibility that a business or its plans or assets will be impacted by underfunding, insolvency, a bankruptcy or liquidation, workforce reduction, sale, merger or other significant event can help plan and administer the steps necessary to handle cost effectively employee benefit related responsibilities and impacts.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with assessing or handing employee benefit or workforce challenges arising from business or employee benefit plan insolvency, stock or asset sales, mergers, bankruptcy or liquidation, reductions or other workforce changes or other significant business transactions or events, or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters including extensive experience handling workforce and employee benefit challenges arising from plan underfunding, company restructurings, workforce change, insolvencies, bankruptcies, mergers, stock or asset acquisitions, or other significant business or plan transactions.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, and insurers, bankruptcy trustees and receivers, asset purchasers, creditors and others dealing with plans and their sponsors, and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns. Her experience includes involvement in the planning, execution and resolution of workforce and employee benefit related details of a multitude of high and low profile restructurings, bankruptcies and other significant transactions throughout her more than 25 year career.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Bankruptcy, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, ERISA, Excise Tax, Executive Compensation, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Professional Liability, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: abandoned plans, bankkruptcy, employee benefit plans, ERISA, fiduciary responsibiltiies, illiquid, insolvancy, reductions in force, Reengineering | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Final Regulations Update HIPAA Health Plan Wellness Program Rules

May 30, 2013

Register Now For 6/4 Solutions Law Press, Inc. Virtual Briefing

Employer, union and sponsors of employment-based group health plans that include health risk assessment (HRA) or other wellness plan features that reward participants for engaging in certain assessments or other activities designed to promote wellness or disease management, and fiduciaries insurers, and administrators of these health plans should review and update their programs in light of final wellness program rules jointly published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) and the Department of Treasury (collectively the “Agencies”) today (May 29, 2013) here (Wellness Regulations).

While these final Wellness Regulations implementation of changes to the “bona fide wellness program exception” to nondiscrimination rules contained in the Portability Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) allow group health plans to provide bigger rewards to members for cooperating in wellness activities required under a “bona wellness program” within the meaning of the Wellness Regulations, the Wellness Regulations and other federal rules still need care to design and administer these health plan features meet all applicable Wellness Regulations for qualification as a “bona fide wellness program while also safeguarding the use of “personal health information” and “genetic health information in accordance with the privacy rules of HIPAA as amended by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) managing potential employment disability discrimination exposures under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) current interpretation of the employment discrimination rules of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and GINA.

Wellness Rules Implement ACA Changes To HIPAA “Bona Fide Wellness Program Rules

The nondiscrimination prohibitions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) generally prohibit health plans from discriminating against an individual based on eligibility or premium based on a health factor. Wellness or disease management programs that vary premiums or contributions, cost-sharing or other benefit mechanisms, or provide other rewards or inducements can run afoul of this HIPAA nondiscrimination prohibition if not properly designed and administered to fall within the “bona fide wellness program” exception.

The Wellness Regulations as finalized continue to interpret HIPAA’s general prohibition against group health plan provisions that discriminate based on a health factor to prohibit group health plans to vary benefits (including cost-sharing mechanisms) or the premium or contribution for similarly situated individuals when wellness program that satisfies the requirements of the Wellness Regulations for a “bona fide wellness program

The Affordable Care Act generally increased the maximum permissible reward under a health-contingent wellness program from 20 percent to 30 percent of the cost of health coverage for qualifying bona fide wellness programs and to as much as 50 percent of the cost of health coverage for bona fide wellness programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use. In keeping with these ACA amendments to HIPAA, the Wellness Regulations allow group health plans and insurers to offer these greater rewards as long as the wellness program otherwise meets the conditions that the Wellness Regulations set for qualification as a bona fide wellness program.

In order to offer these incentives, however, the Wellness Regulations make clear that group health plans, their insurers and fiduciaries still need to tread carefully to properly design and administer these arrangements to ensure that their wellness program meet the applicable conditions of the Wellness Regulations for qualification as a bona fide wellness program.

In keeping with the approach announced in proposed regulations the Agencies previously published here last Fall, the Wellness Regulations have different requirements for “participatory wellness programs” versus “health contingent wellness programs.”

“Participatory wellness programs” generally are programs that reward plan members for participating in wellness activities based on participation in specified activities without regard to an individual’s health status. These include programs that reimburse for the cost of membership in a fitness center; that provide a reward to employees for attending a monthly, no-cost health education seminar; or that reward employees who complete a health risk assessment, without requiring them to take further action
“Health-contingent wellness programs” generally are programs where individuals must meet a specific standard related to their health to qualify for the specified reward or avoid a specified penalty. Examples of health-contingent wellness programs include programs that provide a reward to those who do not use, or decrease their use of, tobacco, or programs that reward those who achieve a specified health-related goal, such as a specified cholesterol level, weight, or body mass index, as well as those who fail to meet such goals but take certain other healthy actions.

Group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators should use care to properly understand which type of program or programs their group health plans contain and ensure that their programs are properly designed and administered to meet these conditions. While fulfillment of these requirements can allow the arrangement to avoid violation of HIPAA’s nondiscrimination rules, however, it is important also to ensure that other applicable federal requirements for the use of these arrangements also are fulfilled along with these HIPAA nondiscrimination requirements.

Meeting Other Federal Rules For Wellness Programs Also Important

In addition to fulfilling the Wellness Regulations, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators also need to ensure that any wellness program included in a group health plan also meets other federal rules about the protection of sensitive personal health information and genetic health information and do not violate the employment discrimination rules of the ADA and GINA

Update Privacy Compliance

.Since wellness programs generally inherently involve some collection, use, access or disclosure of “protected health information” within the meaning of the Privacy Rules of HIPAA, it is particularly important to review and tighten plan provisions and other documentation, processes, procedures, and training to reduce the risk of violating HIPAA. A review of the adequacy of these arrangements is made particularly important in light of recent changes to in the implementing regulations of these HIPAA Privacy Rules adopted earlier this year to implement changes enacted by the HITECH Act. Among other things, these changes may require updates to the health plan’s definition of personal health care information to clarify that it includes family health information and other “genetic information” that wellness programs often collect. Other updates to plan provisions, privacy policies, vendor agreements or other practices also may be needed to comply with modifications to the HIPAA Privacy Rules on business associates, marketing, breach notification, training or other rules.

Manage Disability Discrimination Risks

In addition to ensuring compliance with current requirements about privacy, group health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and vendors also should take steps to minimize potential employment discrimination challenges under the ADA and GINA.

Despite ACA’ amendments to HIPAA’s bona fide wellness program rules and the 11^th Circuit’s rejection of an EEOC challenge in Broward County v. Seff, EEOC officials continue to take the position that testing and inquiries about medical conditions made in connection with wellness programs presumptively violate the Americans With Disabilities Act physical testing and other disability discrimination rules as raising concerns about wellness and disease management programs.. See, e.g., EBSA Issues Guidance on Health Plan Wellness & Disease Management Programs Subject to HIPAA Nondiscrimination Rules; ADAAA Amendment Broader “Disability Definition Not Retroactive, Employer Action Needed To Manage Post 1/1/2009 Risks; Businesses Face Rising Disability Discrimination Enforcement Risks; EEOC Finalizes Updates To Disability Regulations In Response to ADA Amendments Act.

The ADA is not the only employment discrimination risk to manage, however. In addition to the amendments to the group health plan nondiscrimination and Privacy Rules of HIPAA, GINA’s employment discrimination rules generally prohibit employment discrimination based on “genetic health information.” For instance, GINA’s genetic information nondiscrimination rules:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and

EEOC officials have stated publicly on certain occasions and reportedly have challenged health risk assessments or other wellness program features that request or collect family medical history or other genetic information as violating GINA’s employment discrimination rules.

Learn More At 6/4 Solutions Law Briefing

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites employer and other employment-based group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries insurers, administrators, brokers, consultants and others to learn the key details of new Final Wellness Program regulations jointly published May 29, 2013 by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury (collectively the “Agencies”) by participating in an informative and timely virtual briefing on “Making Wellness Programs Work Under New Final Tri-Agency Regulations” on June 4, 2013 beginning at Noon Central Time. To register or for additional details, see here.

For Help or More Information

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

1 Comment | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, GINA, Group Health plans, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Privacy, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Register For 6/4 Virtual Briefing On DOL/IRS/HHS Final Group Health Plan Wellness Program Regulations

May 30, 2013

Solutions Law Press, Inc. Invites Employer & Other Group Health Plan Sponsors, Insurers, Administrators, Brokers, Advisors & Consultants to A Virtual Briefing On

Making Wellness Programs Work Under New Tri-Agency Final Wellness Regulations

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

1:00 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 12:00 P.M.-1:00 P.M. Central | 11:00 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 10 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

Register Now!

New final wellness program regulations jointly published May 29, 2013 by the Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services and Labor tell employers and insurers how to design health risk assessment and other wellness and disease management tools in their group health plans and policies to incentivize and reward employees and other plan members to better manage their health and help manage health plan costs without violating the HIPAA Portability Rules against group health plan discrimination in premiums or eligibility based on health status.

Participants in this briefing will learn key information about:

The final wellness program regulation’s requirements for designing HRA and other group health plan wellness and disease management programs that avoid violating HIPAA’s prohibition against discrimination based on health factors as “bona fide wellness programs;”
How group health plans can take advantage of the option allowed beginning in 2014 to offer greater incentives to plan members to participate in group health plan wellness programs by amendments made under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
How new Omnibus HIPAA Privacy Rules may require group health plans and insurers to update their marketing and other privacy policies, procedures, documentation, vendor agreements and other practices for collecting, using, disclosing and safeguarding “personal health information” and “genetic health information” when administering wellness programs and other group health plan provisions;
When the EEOC views wellness programs incentives as potentially violating the Americans With Disabilities Act discrimination exposures under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) current interpretation of the employment discrimination rules of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and GINA; and
Other tips for designing legally compliant, effective group health plan disease management and wellness programs.

Ms. Stamer also will take questions from virtual audience participants as time permits.

About The Speaker

Registration

Registration Fee is $95.00 per person Registration required for each virtual participant. Payment required via website registration in advance of the program.. Payment only accepted via website PayPal. No checks or cash accepted. Participation is limited and available on a first come, first serve basis. Persons not registered at least 24 hours in advance not guaranteed to receive access information or materials prior to commencement of the briefing.

Equipment Requirements For Virtual Briefing Participation

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assist businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know at the time of your registration so that we may consider your request. ©2013 Solutions Law Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on Register For 6/4 Virtual Briefing On DOL/IRS/HHS Final Group Health Plan Wellness Program Regulations | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Disability, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, MEWA, Tax, Wellness Programs | Tagged: ACA, ADA, Affordable Care Act, GINA, HIPAA, HIPAA Portability, HIPAA Privacy, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Insured “Expatriate Plans” Get Temporary Reprieve From Affordable Care Act Compliance Thru 2015 If Meet Other Health Plan Mandates

March 13, 2013

U.S. businesses with workers working oversees and foreign businesses sending employees to work in the U.S. often overlook the need to design their expatriate health benefit and certain other welfare plans and employment practices to properly comply with applicable U.S. mandates.

“Expatriate health plans” within the meaning of the “FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XIII)”(the “Expat FAQ”) are not required to comply the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements for pre-January 1, 2016 plan years, as long as they comply with the applicable federal health plan mandates of pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act and other applicable law under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) under temporary transitional relief announced in the Expat FAQ jointly announced by the Agencies of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Agencies) on March 8, 2013.

ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Rules Generally Apply To Expat Coverage

The Expat FAQ makes clear that the Agencies generally view expatriate health plans and other health benefit coverage provided by businesses subject to U.S. law for employees working outside their home country generally are subject to the mandates of ACA, as well as other federal health plan mandates. However, ERISA section 4(b)(4) may exempt from ERISA coverage “plans maintained outside the United States primarily for the benefit of persons substantially all of whom are nonresident aliens.” Similar exemptions also may be available for certain provisions of the Code or ERISA for these extra-territorial plans for nonresident aliens. For instance, for purposes of the eligibility non-discrimination rule of Code section 105(h), the Code specifies that an employer can disregard employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d)92) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States within the meaning of section 861(a)(3).

Businesses should design and administer their health plans in accordance with all relevant federal health benefit regulations unless qualification for their plan for exemption is specifically verified.

Temporary Transitional ACA Relief For “Expatriate Health Plans”

While the Agencies gather further information and analyze the potential challenges expatriate plans may face in complying with the Affordable Care Act, the Expat FAQ states that for plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2015, the Agencies will treat expatriate health plans as treating the requirements of subtitles A and C of Title I of the Affordable Care Act if the plan and issuer comply with the pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the PHS Act, section 715 of ERISA, and section 9815 of the Code and other applicable law under ERISA and the Code including, for example, the mental health parity provisions, the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions, the ERISA section 503 requirements for claims procedures, and any reporting and disclosure obligations under ERISA Part 1.

The Expat FAQ also confirms that the Agencies will treat coverage provided under an expatriate group health plan as a form of minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Code. If an individual has minimum essential coverage, the individual will not be subject to the “Individual Mandate” tax. Additionally, an employee who is offered “minimum essential coverage” by his/her employer will not be eligible for a subsidy in the Exchange if the employer coverage is “affordable” and provides “minimum value.” This means the employer will not be subject to a potential penalty under the ACA “Employer Shared Responsibility” provisions of new Code section 4980H.

Definition of “Expatriate Health Plan” Limited To Certain Insured Health Plans

Sponsors and insurers providing or administering health benefits with respect to employees working or living outside the United States are cautioned of the need to confirm that their program falls under the Expat FAQ’s definition of “expatriate health plan.” For purposes of this temporary transitional relief, the Expat FAQ defines an “expatriate health plan” as “an insured group health plan with respect to which enrollment is limited to primary insureds who reside outside of their home country for at least six months of the plan year and any covered dependents, and its associated group health insurance coverage.” The Expat FAQ confirms its definition of “expatriate health coverage” also applies for purposes of the Health Insurer Issuer Standards Related to Transitional Reinsurance Program of 45 CFR 153.400(a)(1)(iii) for plans with plan years ending on or before December 31, 2015.

This definition of expatriate health plan will not extend to all health coverage provided for employees of U.S. companies working outside the United States. Employers and administrators of self-insured health plans providing coverage for expatriate employees take note, however. Because this definition presently is limited to “insured group health plans,” it self-insured health coverage provided for expatriate employees presently do not qualify as expatriate health plans covered by the relief contained in the Expat FAQ. Likewise, the definition also does not apply to health coverage provided for employees working abroad for periods of less than six months. Sponsors, insurers and administrators of health plans providing coverage for employees of U.S. employer working outside their home countries that fall outside the Expat FAQ definition of an “expatriate health plan” should ensure that their programs timely comply with all applicable federal health plan mandates including ACA.

Agencies Invite Public Input On ACA Application To Expatriate Health Plans

The Agencies request comments on and information about the unique challenges that expatriate health plans may face in complying with provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including information about which particular types of plans face these challenges and with respect to which particular provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In anticipation of further input and analysis, the Expat FAQ speculates that potential challenges that could complicate Affordable Care Act compliance for an expatriate health plan might include:

Reconciling and coordinating the multiple regulatory regimes that apply to expatriate health plans might make it impossible or impracticable to comply with all the relevant rules at least in the near term;

Independent review organizations may not exist abroad;

It may be difficult for certain preventive services to be provided, or even be identified as preventive, when services are provided outside the United States by clinical providers that use different code sets and medical terminology to identify services.

Expatriate issuers may face challenges and delays in communicating with enrollees living abroad.

Due to the complex nature of these plans, standardized benefits disclosures can be difficult for issuers to produce.

Expatriate health plans may require additional regulatory approvals from foreign governments.

In some circumstances, it is possible that domestic and foreign law requirements conflict.

The Expat FAQ invites employers, insurers and other interested persons to provide input to the Agencies by sending their comments by May 8, 2013 to e.ohpsca-expat.ebsa@dol.gov. Sponsors, insurers and administrators should share their concerns and insights in response to this invitation.

Review and Update Plans To Manage Risks & Improve Effectiveness

Businesses providing health coverage to workers working outside of the United States should review their policies for compliance with the applicable requirements of the Affordable Care Act, to the extent applicable taking into account the Expat FAQ, as well as otherwise applicable requirements of ERISA, the Code, the PHS Act and other relevant federal laws.  When conducting this review, sponsors, administrators and insurers also should consider opportunities to manage risks, improve plan value and cost effectiveness and mitigate other legal or operational concerns.

Health coverage provided to employees of U.S. businesses working outside the United States typically are provided under policies, plans and programs pursuant to products or other arrangements that may not be designed, documented or administered to adequately comply with relevant federal health plan mandates. Beyond minimizing legal exposures that may result from overlooked compliance obligations, employer or other sponsors, administrators and insurers of these programs generally should familiarize themselves about the health care delivery systems, private and public health benefit programs, regulations and other relevant requirements and circumstances that may impact their business’ obligations to provide or contribute toward the cost of health care coverage, access to quality care by their employees and their families while working outside the United States or their home country, and legal and operational issues that may arise when employees are working oversees, transitioning between countries, have family members residing in different countries or other special circumstances.

The Expat FAQ is only one of a deluge of new guidance recently finalized or proposed by the Agencies. With the effective date of the 2014 Affordable Care Act reforms rapidly approaching, more guidance is impending. Stay tuned for additional updates about Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules and guidance.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help labor and employment, health and other employee benefit, compensation, privacy and data  other internal controls and management concerns, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience with health matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and run legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals.  Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising these and other clients about these matters  and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigration & Customs, Justice, and Health & Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, state labor, insurance, tax and attorneys’ general, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on health and other employee benefit, labor, employment and other human resources, worker classification, tax, internal controls, risk management and other legal and operational management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations who is published and speaks extensively on worker classification and related matters. She is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, find out about upcoming training or other events, review some of her past training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer at http://www.CynthiaStamer.com.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at http://www.solutionslawpress.com including:

Test Your Health Care Reform Knowledge On 3rd Anniversary of Reform Passage

Insured “Expatriate Plans” Get Temporary Reprieve From Affordable Care Act Compliance Thru 2015 If Meet Other Health Plan Mandates

Insured “Expatriate Plans” Get Temporary Reprieve From Affordable Care Act Compliance Thru 2015 If Meet Other Health Plan Mandates

OCR Plans To Survey Health Plans, Other Covered Entities Hit With HIPAA Audits in 2012

Businesses Urged To Strengthen Their Worker Classification Defenses As IRS, Other Agencies Step Up Audits & Enforcement

Alert Employees Claiming Qualified Adoption Expenses and Education Credits About Changed IRS Procedures

13 Employer Tips For Coping With Health Care Reform Now!

Sequester Will Cut ACA Small Businesses Health Care Tax Credits

Premier Insurance Services Pays $120,000 In Back Wages, Damages, Penalties Because Commission-Only Comp Violated Minimum Wage, Overtime Laws

OSHA Citation Of Michigan VA Reminder To Manage Workplace Safety

Labor Department Targeting Businesses Violating Overtime, Other Wage & Hour Laws

Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries

HHS Releases Final Rule on Health Insurance Market, Rate Review, Pre-Existing Conditions & Other ACA Market Reform Rules

FTC, HIPAA Rules Require Health Plans & Employers Strengthen Data Security on Mobile Devices and Applications

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.   ©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved.

“Expatriate health plans” within the meaning of the “FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XIII)”(the “Expat FAQ”) are not required to comply the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements for pre-January 1, 2016 plan years, as long as they comply with the applicable federal health plan mandates of pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act and other applicable law under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) under temporary transitional relief announced in the Expat FAQ jointly announced by the Agencies of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Agencies) on March 8, 2013.

ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Rules Generally Apply To Expat Coverage

The Expat FAQ makes clear that the Agencies generally view expatriate health plans and other health benefit coverage provided by businesses subject to U.S. law for employees working outside their home country generally…

View original post 2,596 more words

Comments Off on Insured “Expatriate Plans” Get Temporary Reprieve From Affordable Care Act Compliance Thru 2015 If Meet Other Health Plan Mandates | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Employee Benefits, Employers, expatriate plans, Health Plans, International | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Catch Up On Health Reform & Other Key Employee Benefits & Insurance Issues Emerging Issues and Litigation Relating to Life, Health, Disability and ERISA Symposium In Ft. Lauderdale

December 7, 2012

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will be one of the featured panelists discussing “Implications of PPACA” on January 18, 2013 at the American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section’s (TIPS) 39th Annual TIPS Midwinter Symposium on Insurance and Employee Benefits “Emerging Issues and Litigation Relating to Life, Health, Disability and ERISA” in Fort Lauderdale.

The “Implications on PPACA” program scheduled at 3:30 p.m. on January 18, 2012 is one of many content-rich series of programs on employee benefit and insurance issues that leading practitioners will lead during the Symposium W Hotel Fort Lauderdale in Fort Lauderdale, FL on January 17-19, 2013. To register, review the full agenda or get additional information about the Symposium, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

Managing Editor of Solutions Law Press, Inc. and a noted Texas-based employee benefits and employment lawyer with extensive involvement in the leadership of the ABA and other professional organizations involved in employee benefits, health care and workforce matters, is nationally and internationally known for her knowledgeable and creative leadership and work as an attorney, consultant, policy advocate, speaker and author helping businesses, governments, and communities on health and other insurance and employee benefits, patient education and empowerment, wellness and disease management, and other programs, policies, and processes. For more than 24 years, Ms. Stamer’s legal practice has focused on advising and representing employers, insurers, health care providers, community leaders and governments about health care and employee benefits policy and process improvement, quality, performance management, education, compliance, communications, risk management, reimbursement and finance, and other related matters. In addition to her legal practice, Stamer also extensively consults and provides leadership to a broad range of clients, professional and civic organizations, and others on strategies for improving the health care system and the ability of health care providers, payers, employers, community organizations, government agencies to promote the ability of patients and their families to access cost-effective, quality, affordable health care and other resource needs. She also has worked extensively with a broad range of business and government clients on health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and many other related policy matters.

In addition to her service with TIPS, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civil organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Executive Director of Project COPE, the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and its representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and Vice Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; and as the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Committee Coordinator. She previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early retirement intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association; on many seminar faculties and in many other professional and civic leadership and volunteer roles.

Author of the hundreds of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. Nationally known for her work on health care reform and related matters, Ms. Stamer also regularly conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns. For more information about Ms. Stamer, upcoming training, publications or other materials or events, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly via email here or (469) 767-8872.

Comments Off on Catch Up On Health Reform & Other Key Employee Benefits & Insurance Issues Emerging Issues and Litigation Relating to Life, Health, Disability and ERISA Symposium In Ft. Lauderdale | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Disability, Disability, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, ERISA, HIPAA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers & Plan Fiduciaries Reminded To Confirm Credentials & Bonding For Internal Staff, Plan Fidiciaries & Vendors Dealing With Benefits

August 13, 2012

Businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans and officers, directors, employees and others acting as fiduciaries with respect to these employee benefit plans should take steps to confirm that all of the appropriate fiduciary bonds required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) are in place, that all employee benefit plans sponsored are appropriately covered, and that all individuals serving in key positions requiring bonding are covered and appropriately qualified to serve in that capacity under ERISA and the terms of the bond. Adequate attention to these concerns not only is a required component of ERISA’s fiduciary compliance, it also may provide invaluable protection if a dishonesty or other fiduciary breach results in a loss or other exposure.

ERISA generally requires that every employee benefit plan fiduciary, as well as every other person who handles funds or other property of a plan (a “plan official”), be bonded if they have some discretionary control over a plan or the assets of a related trust. While some narrow exceptions are available to this bonding requirement, these exceptions are very narrow and apply only if certain narrow criteria are met. Plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries should take steps to ensure that all of the bonding requirements applicable to their employee benefit plans are met at least annually. Monitoring these compliance obligations is important not only for the 401(k) and other retirement plans typically associated with these requirements, but also for self-insured medical and other ERISA-covered employee benefit plans. This process of credentialing persons involved with the plan and auditing bonding generally should begin with adopting a written policy requiring bonding and verification of credentials and that that appropriate bonds are in place for all internal personnel and outside service providers.

Steps should be taken to ensure that the required fiduciary bonds are secured in sufficient amounts and scope to meet ERISA’s requirements. In addition to confirming the existence and amount of the fiduciary bonds, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should confirm that each employee plan for which bonding is required is listed in the bond and that the bond covers all individuals or organizations that ERISA requires to be bonded. For this purpose, the review should verify the sufficiency and adequacy of bonding in effect for both internal personnel as well as outside service providers. In the case of internal personnel, the adequacy of the bonds should be reviewed annually to ensure that bond amounts are appropriate. Unless a service provider provides a legal opinion that adequately demonstrates that an ERISA bonding exemption applies, plan sponsors and fiduciaries also should require that third party service providers provide proof of appropriate bonding as well as to contract to be bonded in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws, to provide proof of their bonded status or documentation of their exemption, and to provide notice of events that could impact on their bonded status. When verifying the bonding requirements, it also is a good idea to conduct a criminal background check and other prudent investigation to reconfirm the credentials and suitability of individuals and organizations serving in fiduciary positions or otherwise acting in a capacity covered by ERISA’s bonding requirements. ERISA generally prohibits individuals convicted of certain crimes from serving, and prohibits plan sponsors, fiduciaries or others from knowingly hiring, retaining, employing or otherwise allowing these convicted individuals during or for the 13-year period after the later of the conviction or the end of imprisonment, to serve as:

An administrator, fiduciary, officer, trustee, custodian, counsel, agent, employee, or

representative in any capacity of any employee benefit plan,

A consultant or adviser to an employee benefit plan, including but not limited to any entity whose activities are in whole or substantial part devoted to providing goods or services to any employee benefit plan, or
In any capacity that involves decision-making authority or custody or control of the moneys, funds, assets, or property of any employee benefit plan.

Because ERISA’s bonding and prudent selection of fiduciaries and service provider requirements, breach of its provisions carries all the usual exposures of a fiduciary breach.

Bonding exposures can arise in audit or as part of a broader fiduciary investigation.The likelihood of discovery in an audit or investigation by the Labor Department in the course of an audit is high, as review of bonding is a standard part of audits and investigations. The Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) Enforcement Manual specifies in connection with the conduct of a fiduciary investigation or audit:

… the Investigator/Auditor will ordinarily determine whether a plan is in compliance with the bonding, reporting, and disclosure provisions of ERISA by completing an ERISA Bonding Checklist … These checklists will be filled out in fiduciary cases and retained in the RO workpaper case file unless violations are uncovered, developed, and reported in the ROI.

In the best case scenario, where the bonding noncompliance comes to light in the course of an EBSA audit where no plan loss resulted, the responsible fiduciary generally runs at least a risk that EBSA will assess the 20 percent fiduciary penalty under ERISA Section 502(l). If the bonding lapse comes to light in connection with a fiduciary breach that resulted in damages to the plan by a fiduciary or other party, the bonding insufficiency may be itself a breach of fiduciary duty resulting in injury to the plan and where this breach left the plan unprotected against an act of dishonesty or fiduciary breach by an individual who should have been bonded, may spread liability for the wrongful acts of the wrongdoer to a plan sponsor, member of management or other party serving in a fiduciary role who otherwise would not be liable but for definiciences in the bonding or other credentialing responsibilities.

Under ERISA Section 409, a fiduciary generally is personally liable for injuries to the plan arising from his own breach (such as failure to properly bond) or resulting from breaches of another co-fiduciary who he knew or should have known through prudent exercise of his responsibilities.

Of course, in the most serious cases, such as embezzlement or other criminal acts by a fiduciary of ERISA, the consequences can be quite dire. Knowing or intentional violation of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibilities exposes the guilty fiduciary to fines of up to $10,000, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. Even where the violation is not knowing or willful, however, allowing disqualified persons to serve in fiduciary roles can have serious consequences such as exposure to Department of Labor penalties and personal liability for breach of fiduciary duty for damages resulting to the plan if it is established that the retention of services was an imprudent engagement of such an individual that caused the loss. When conducting such a background check, care should be taken to comply with the applicable notice and consent requirements for conducting third party conducted background checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and otherwise applicable law. As such background investigations generally would be conducted in such a manner as to qualify as a credit check for purposes of the FCRA, conducting background checks in a manner that violates the FCRA credit check requirements itself can be a source of significant liability.

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Plan Sponosr, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Mandate That Employer Health Plans Must Cover 100% Of Contraceptive, Other Women’s Health Services With No Cost Sharing Now Effective

August 6, 2012

August 1 Effective Date Of Obama Administration Addition of Contraception & Other Women’s Health Services To Already Lengthy List of Prevention Services Plans Must Cover

Effective August 1, 2012, federal regulators expanded the list of prevention-related services that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) requires that non-grandfathered group health plans cover in-network at no cost to covered persons to include eight more prevention-related health services for women including coverage for the mandate to cover certain contraceptive services that has engendered much debate and opposition from various religious organizations and others.

Employers and other sponsors and insurers of group health plans should review and update their health plan documents, contracts, communications and administration practices to ensure that their health plans and policies appropriately cover these and other prevention-related services that current federal regulations mandate that group health plans (other than grandfathered plans) must cover to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Non-Grandfathered Health Plans Must Cover Expansive List of Prevention Services

As part of the sweeping reforms enacted by the Affordable Care Act, Congress has mandated that except for certain plans that qualify as “grandfathered,” group health plans and insurers generally must pay for 100% of the cost to cover hundreds of prevention-related health care services for individuals covered under their health plans without any co-payments or other cost-sharing.identified in the services without cost sharing.

Federal regulations have mandated since 2010 that group health plans and insurers provide in-network coverage in accordance with federal regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s prevention-related health services mandates for more than 800 prevention-related services listed in regulations originally published in 2009. See Agencies Release Regulations Implementing Affordable Care Act Preventive Care Mandates. The Affordable Care Act gives federal authorities the power to expand or modify this list. Following publication of the original list, the Obama Administration engaged in lengthy discussion considerations about the scope of contraceptive and other women’s health services that would qualify as prevention related services including lengthy discussions and negotiations about mandates to provide contraceptive services viewed as highly controversial by many religious organizations and several other employers. See Affordable Care Act To Require Health Plans Cover Contraception & Other Women’s Health Procedures.

Obama Administration Adds Contraceptive & Other Women’s Health Services To Required List Effective 8/1/2012

The Obama Administration moved forward on its promise to add contraceptive services and a broad list of other women’s health services to the list of prevention-related health services that employer-sponsored health plans must cover without cost to employees despite objections from religious organizations and others that the contraception mandate violates the Constitution’s freedom of religion protections.

The Obama Administration’s announcement earlier this year that it intended to move forward with plans to mandate that group health plans – including those of certain employers affiliated with religious organizations to cover contraceptive counseling and other services as prevention-related services has prompted outcry and legal challenges from a broad range of religious organizations and others. See e.g., University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius; Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Sebelius. On July 27, 2012, a Colorado District Court granted a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate against a small, Catholic family-owned business challenging the mandate as a violation of the Constitutional religious freedoms of its owners. See Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Sebelius.

While these and other litigants continue to challenge the contraceptive mandates, Obama Administration officials continue to voice their commitment to standby and enforce the contraceptive and other prevention-related services mandates as implemented by current regulation. Employer and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries that do not wish to risk exposure for violating these mandates should review and update their health plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, and administrative and other procedures as necessary to comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging health plan regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For important information concerning this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Mandated Benefits, Plan Sponosr, preventive care, Risk Managment, Women's Health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now To Manage 2012-14 Health Plan Risks & Liabilities

August 1, 2012

August 1 marked the effective date of yet another Affordable Care Act mandate: the controversial contraceptive coverage and other women’s health preventive coverage benefits mandates. Although many mandates have taken effect over the past two years, few employer plans are adequately updated. Here’s some suggestions about what employers and fiduciaries responsible for group health plan sponsorship or administration and their vendors should do now to manage exposures arising from current Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules. Following the Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling, most employers and insurers of employment based group health plans now are bracing to cope with radical changes in their health plan related responsibilities scheduled to take effect in 2014.

While anticipating and preparing to cope with these future changes health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and advisors need to manage the substantial and growing health plan related costs and liabilities that the sponsorship or administration of an employee health plan between now and 2014 is likely to create for their company and its management. Consequently, while planning for 2014, employers sponsoring health plans and their management, insurers, administrators and vendors must act now to update and administer their group health plans timely to comply with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and other federal rules that have, or in coming months will, take effect pending the law’s full rollout in 2014.

For most health plans, these steps should include the following:

Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) (Including You) They Wear & Prudently Select, Contract With & Monitor Them To Manage Risks

Employers and their management rely upon many vendors and advisors and assumptions when making plan design and risk management decisions. Many times, employer and members of their management unknowingly assume significant risk because of misperceptions about these allocations of duties and operational and legal accountability. An correct understanding of these roles and responsibilities is the foundation for knowing where the risks come from, who and to what extent a business or its management can rely upon a vendor or advisor to properly design and administer a health plan or carry out related obligations, what risks cannot be delegated, and how to manage these risks.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), party or parties that exercise discretion or control over health plan administration, funds or certain other matters are generally called “fiduciaries.” Fiduciaries generally are personally liable for prudently and appropriately administering their health plan related responsibilities prudently in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws and the plan terms. Knowing who is acting as a fiduciary and understanding those duties and liabilities and how to manage these risks significantly affects the exposure that an employer or member of its management risks as a result of an employer’s sponsorship in a group health plan or other employee benefit program. Also, knowing what duties come first and how to prove that the fiduciary did the right thing is critical to managing risks when an individual who has fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA also has other responsibilities in the management of the sponsoring employer, a vendor or elsewhere that carries duties or interests that conflict with his health plan related fiduciary duties.

The plan sponsor or members of its leadership, a service provider or members of their staff generally may be a fiduciary for purposes of ERISA if it either is named as the fiduciary, it functionally exercises the discretion to be considered a fiduciary, or it otherwise has discretionary power over plan administration or other fiduciary matters. Many plan sponsors and their management unwittingly take on liability that they assume rests with an insurer or service provider because the company or members of its management are named as the plan administrator or named fiduciary with regard to duties that the company has hired an insurer or service provider to provide or allowed that service provider to disclaim fiduciary or discretionary status with regard to those responsibilities. Also, by not knowing who the fiduciaries are, plans and their fiduciaries often fail to confirm the eligibility of all parties serving as fiduciaries, to arrange for bonding of service providers or fiduciaries as required to comply with Title I of ERISA. Failing to properly understand when the plan sponsor, member of its management or another party is or could be a fiduciary can create unnecessary and unexpected risks and lead to reliance upon vendors who provide advice but leave the employer holding the bag for resulting liability.

In addition to fiduciary status, employer and other plan sponsors also need to understand the additional responsibilities and exposures that the employer bears as a plan sponsor. Beyond contractual and fiduciary liabilities, federal law increasingly imposes excise tax or other liability for failing to maintain legally compliant plans, file required reports, provide required notifications or fulfill other requirements. The Affordable Care Act, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, the Privacy, Security, and Administrative Simplification For instance, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and various other federal laws also impose certain health plan related obligations and liabilities on employer or other health plan sponsors and other parties. The Internal Revenue Service interprets Internal Revenue Code § 6039D as obligating employers sponsoring health plans that violate these and certain other federal health plan rules to self-identify, self-report, and self-assess and pay excise and other taxes due under the Internal Revenue Code as a result of this non-compliance. Knowing what everyone’s roles and responsibilities are is a critical first step to properly understanding and managing health plan responsibilities and related risks.

An accurate understanding of the risks and who bears them is critical to understand the risks, opportunities to mitigate risk through effective contracting or other outsourcing, when outsourcing does not effectively transfer risks, where to invest resources for contract, plan or process review and changes or other risk management, and where to expect costs and risks and implement processes and procedures to deal with risks that cannot be outsourced or managed.

Know What Rules Apply To Your Plan, The Sponsoring Employer, The Plan Its Fiduciaries & Plan Related Vendors & How This Impacts You & Your Group Health Plan

The requirements and rules impacting health plans and their liabilities have undergone continuous changes. Amid these changing requirements, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, and service providers often may not have kept their knowledge, much less their plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, administrative forms and procedures and other materials and practices up to date. These requirements and their compliance and risk management significance may vary depending upon whether the reviewing or regulated party is the plan, its sponsor, fiduciary, insurer or services in some other rules; how the plans are arranged and documented, the risk and indemnification allocations negotiated among the parties, the risk tolerance of the party, and other factors. Proper understanding of these rules and their implications is critical to understand and manage the applicable risks and exposures.

Review & Update Health Plan Documents, SPDs & Other Communications, Administrative Forms & Procedures, Contracts & Processes To Meet Requirements & Manage Exposures

Timely updating written plan documents, communications and administration forms, administrative practices, contracts and other health plan related materials processes and procedures has never been more critical.

Federal law generally requires that health plan be established, maintained and administered in accordance with legally complaint, written plan documents and impose a growing list of standards and requirements governing the design and administration of these programs. In addition, ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, federal eligibility and coverage continuation mandates of laws like the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, the Family & Medical Leave Act, Michelle’s Law and others require that health plan administrators or sponsors communicate plan terms and other relevant information to participants and beneficiaries.

Failing to update documents, communications, administrative forms and processes and other materials and practices can unleash a host of exposures. Among other things, noncompliant plans, communications and practices can trigger unanticipated costs and liabilities by undermining the ability to administer plan terms and conditions. They also may expose the plan, plan fiduciaries and others to lawsuits, administrative enforcement and sanctions and other enforcement liabilities.

Beyond these exposures, employers who sponsor group health plans that violate certain federal group health plan mandates have a duty to self-report certain regulatory plan failures and pay excise taxes where such failures are not corrected in a timely fashion once discovered, or are due to willful neglect. Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D imposes excise taxes for failure to comply with health care continuation (COBRA) , health plan portability (HIPAA), genetic nondiscrimination (GINA), mental health parity (MHPAEA) , minimum hospital stays for newborns and mothers (Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act), coverage of dependent students on medically necessary leaves of absence (Michelle’s Law), health savings account (HSA) and Archer medical savings account (Archer MSA) contribution comparability and various other federal requirements incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code. Since 2010, Internal Revenue Service regulations have required employers sponsoring group health plans not complying with mandates covered by Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D to self-report violations and pay related excise taxes. Under these regulations, the sponsoring employer (or in some cases, the insurer, HMO or third-party administrator) must report health plan compliance failures annually on IRS Form 8928 (“Return of Certain Excise Taxes Under Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code”) and self-assess and pay resulting excise taxes. The potential excise tax liability that can result under these provisions can be significant. For example, COBRA, HIPAA, and GINA violations typically carry excise tax liability of $100 per day per individual affected. Compliance with applicable federal group health plan mandates is critical to avoid these excise taxes as well as other federal group health plan liabilities.

For this purpose of deciding what and how much to do, it is critical to keep in mind the devil is in the details. Not only must the documentation meet all technical mandates, the language, its clarity and specificity, and getting the plan document to match the actual processes that will be used to administer the plan and ensuring that the plan documents and processes match the summary plan description, summary of benefits and coverage, administrative forms and documentation and other plan communications and documentation in a legally compliant way significantly impacts the defensibility of the plan terms and the cost that the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries can expect to incur to defend it.

Update & Tighten Claims and Appeals Plan & SPD Language, EOBs & Other Notifications, Processes, Contracts & Other Practices For Changing Compliance Requirements & Enhanced Defensibility

Proper health plan claims and appeals plan and summary plan description language, procedures, processing, notification and documentation is critical to maintain defensible claims and appeals decisions required to enforce plan terms and manage claims denial related liabilities and defense costs. Noncompliance with these requirements may prevent health plans from defending their claims or appeals denials, expose the plan administrator and plan fiduciaries involved or responsible for these activities to penalties, prompt unnecessary lawsuits, Labor Department enforcement or both; and drive up plan administration costs.

Unfortunately, most group health plans, their insurers and administrators need to substantially strengthen their plan documentation; handling; timeliness; notifications and other claims denials; and other claims and other appeals processes and documentation to meet existing regulations and otherwise strengthen their defensibility. Among other things, existing court decisions document that many plans existing plan documents, summary plan descriptions and explanations of benefits, claims and appeals investigations and documentation and notifications often need improvement to meet the basic plan document, summary plan description and reasonable claims rules of the plan document, summary plan description, fiduciary responsibility, reasonable claims and appeals procedures of ERISA and its implementing regulations. Court precedent shows that inadequate drafting of these provisions, as well as specific provisions coverage and benefit provisions frequently undermines the defensibility of claims and appeals determinations. In addition to requiring that claims be processed and paid prudently in accordance with the terms of written plan documents, ERISA also requirements that plan fiduciaries decide and administer claims and appeals in accordance with reasonable claims procedures. Although the Labor Department updated its regulations implementing this reasonable claims and appeals procedure requirement more than 10 years ago, the Department of Labor updated its ERISA claims and appeals regulations to include detailed health plan claims and appeals requirements, many group health plans, their administrators and insurers still have not updated their health plans, summary plan descriptions, claims and appeals notification, and claims and appeals procedures to comply with these requirements. The external review and other detailed additional requirements that the Affordable Care Act dictates that group health plans not grandfathered from its provisions and its provisions holding these non-grandfathered plans strictly liable for deficiencies in their claims and appeals procedures makes the need to address inadequacies even more imperative for those non-grandfathered group health plans. Inadequate attention to these concerns can force a plan to pay benefits for claims otherwise not covered as well as other defense costs and penalties.

Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation & Processes, Then Follow Them.

Defensible health plan administration starts with the building and adopting strong, legally compliant plan terms and processes that are carefully documented and communicated in a prudent, legally compliant way. The next key is to actually use this investment by conducting plan administration and related operations consistent with the terms and allocated responsibilities to administer the plan in a documented, legally compliant and prudent manner. Good documentation and design on the front end should minimize ambiguities in the meaning of the plan and who is responsible for doing what when. With these tools in place, delays and other hiccups that result from confusion about plan terms, how they apply to a particular circumstance or who is responsible for doing what, when should be minimized and much more easily resolved by timely, appropriate action by the proper responsible party. This facilitation of administration and its consistency can do much to enhance the defensibility of the plan and minimize other plan related risks and costs.

Ensure Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner

Having the proper party respond to claims and inquiries in a compliant, timely, prudent manner is another key element to managing health plan risk and promoting enforceability. Ideally, the party appointed to act as the named fiduciary for purposes of carrying out a particular function also should conduct all plan communications regarding that function in terms that makes clear its role and negates responsibility or authority of others. When an employer or other plan sponsor goes to the trouble to appoint a committee, service provider or other party to serve as the named fiduciary then chooses to communicate about the plan anyway, the Supreme Court in FMC v. Halliday made clear it runs the risk that the plan related communications may be considered discretionary fiduciary conduct for which it may be liable as a functional fiduciary. Meanwhile, these communications by non-fiduciaries also may create binding obligations upon the plan and its named fiduciaries to the extent made by a plan sponsor or conducted by a staff member or service provider performing responsibilities delegated by the plan fiduciary. Beyond expanding the scope of potential fiduciaries, communications conducted by nonfiduciaries also tend to create defensibility for many other reasons. For instance, allowing unauthorized parties to perform plan functions may not comport with the plan terms, and are less likely to create and preserve required documentation and follow procedures necessary to promote enforceability. Also, the communications, decisions and other actions by these non-fiduciary actors also are unlikely to qualify for discretionary review by the courts because grants of discretionary authority, if any in the written plan document to qualify the decisions of the named fiduciary for deferential review by courts typically will not extend to actions by these non-fiduciary parties. Furthermore, the likelihood that the communication or other activity conducted will not comply with the fiduciary responsibility or other requirements governing the performance of the plan related functions is significantly increased when a plan sponsor, service provider, member of management, or other party not who has not been appointed or accepted the appointment act as a named fiduciary undertakes to speak or act because that party very likely does not accept or fully appreciate the potential nature of its actions, the fiduciary and other legal rules applicable to the conduct, and the potential implications for the non-fiduciary actor, the plan and its fiduciaries.

Design and Implement Updated, Properly Secured Payroll, Enrollment, Eligibility and Other Data Collection Features To Meet New Requirements and Prepare For Added Affordable Care Act Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements.

Existing and impending Affordable Care Act mandates require that group health plans, their sponsors collect, maintain and administer is exploding. Existing eligibility mandates, for example, already require that plans have access to a broad range of personal indentifying, personal health and a broad range of other sensitive information about employees and dependents who are or may be eligible for coverage under the plan. While employers and their health plans historically have collected and retained the names, place of residence, family relationships, social security number, and other similar information about employees and their dependents, these data collection, retention and reporting requirements have and will continued to expand dramatically in response to evolving legal requirements. Already, health plans also from time to time need employee earnings, company ownership, employment status, family income, family, medical, military, and school leave information, divorce and child custody, enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid and other coverage and a broad range of other additional information. Under the Affordable Care Act, these data needs will explode to include a whole new range of information about total family income, availability and enrollment in other coverage, cultural and language affiliations, and many other items. Collecting, retaining and deploying this information will be critical to meeting existing and new plan administration and reporting requirements. How this data collection is conducted, shared, safeguarded against misuse or other legally sensitive contact by the employer, service providers, the plan and others will be essential to mitigate exposures to federal employment and other nondiscrimination, HIPAA and other privacy, fiduciary responsibility and other legal risks and obligations. To the extent that payroll providers, third party administrators or other outside service providers will participate in the collection, retention, or use of this data, time also should be set aside both to conduct due diligence about their suitability, as well as to negotiate the necessary contractual arrangements and safeguards to make their involvement appropriate. Finally, given the highly sensitive nature of this data, employers, health plans and others that will collect and use this data will need to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent and monitor for improper use, access or disclosure and to conduct the necessary training to suitably protect this data.

Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court’s decision upholds the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandates, many opportunities to impact its mandates remain. Beyond the highly visible, continuing and often heated debates ranging in Congress and the court of public opinion concerning whether Congress should modify or repeal its provisions, a plethora of regulatory interpretations issued or impending release by the implementing agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Labor and state insurance regulators will significantly impact what requirements and costs employers, insurers, individuals and governments will bear when the law takes effect. Businesses sponsoring health plans should carefully scrutinize this regulatory guidance and provide meaningful, timely input to Congress, the regulators or both as appropriate to help influence the direction of regulatory or Congressional actions that would materially impact these burdens.

Help Employees & Their Families Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training & Supportive Tools

Whether or not your company plans to continue to sponsor employee health coverage after 2014, providing training and tools to help employees and their families strengthen their ability to understand and manage their health, health care needs and benefits can pay big dividends. Beyond the financial costs to employees and employers of paying to care for a serious illness or injury, productivity also suffers while employees dealing with their own or a family member’s chronic or serious health care condition. Wellness programs that encourage and support the efforts of employees and their families to stay healthy may be one valuable part of these efforts. Beyond trying to prevent the need to cope with illness behind wellness programs, however, opportunities to realize big financial, productivity and benefit value recognition rewards also exist in the too often overlooked opportunity to provide training, education and tools that employees and their families need to better understand and self-manage care, benefits, finances and life challenges that commonly arise when dealing with their own or a family member’s illness. Providing education, tools and other resources that can help employees access, organize and effectively use health care and benefit information to manage care and the consequences of illness, their benefits and how to use them, to take part more effectively in care and care decisions, to recognize and self-manage financial, lost-time and other challenges associated with the illness not addressable or covered by health benefit programs, and other practical skills can help reduce lost time and other productivity impacts while helping employees and their families get the most out of the health care dollars spent.

Pack Your Parachute & Locate The Nearest Exit Doors

With the parade of expenses and liabilities associated with health plans, businesses sponsoring health plans and the management, service providers and others involved in their establishment, continuation, maintenance or administration are well advised to pack their survival kit and develop their exit strategies to position to soften the landing in case their health plan experiences a legal or operational disaster.

Employers and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries typically hire and rely upon a host of vendors and advisors to design and administer their health plans. When selecting and hiring these service providers, health plan sponsors and fiduciaries are well-advised to investigate carefully their credentials as well as require the vendors to provide written commitments to stand behind their advice and services. Too often, while these service providers and advisors encourage plan sponsors and fiduciaries to allow the vendor to lead them or even handle on an ongoing basis plan administration services by touting their services, experience, expert systems and process and commitment to stand behind the customer when making the sale or encouraging reliance upon their advice when tough decisions are made, they rush to stand behind exculpatory and on-sided indemnification provisions in their service contracts to limit or avoid liability, demand indemnification from their customer or both when things go wrong. While ERISA may offer some relief from certain of these exculpatory provisions under some circumstances, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should work to credential service providers and require service providers to commit to being accountable for their services by requiring contracts acknowledge all promised services and standards of quality, require vendors to commit to provide legally compliant and prudently designed and administered services that meet or exceed applicable legal requirements, to provide liability-backed indemnification or other protection for damages and costs resulting from vendor imprudence or malfeasance, to allow for contract termination if the vendor becomes unsuitable for continued use due to changing law or other circumstances and requiring the vendor to return data and other documentation critical to defend past decisions and provide for ongoing administration. Keep documentation about advice, assurances and other relevant evidence received from vendors which could be useful in showing your company’s or plan’s efforts to make prudent efforts to provide for the proper administration of the plan. When concerns arise, use care to investigate and redress concerns in a timely, measured fashion which both shows the prudent response to the concern and reflects sensitivity to the fiduciary and other roles and responsibilities of the employer sponsor and other parties involved.

Get Moving Now On Your Compliance & Risk Management Issues.

Since many compliance deadlines already have past and the impending deadlines allow plan sponsors and fiduciaries limited time to finish arrangements, businesses, fiduciaries and their service providers need to get moving immediately to update their health plans to meet existing and impending compliance and risk management risks under the Affordable Care Act and other federal laws, decisions and regulations.

Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, employer and other health plan sponsors, Congress continues to debate changes to the Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules. Meanwhile, significant opportunity still exists to provide input to federal and state regulators on many key aspects of the Affordable Care Act and its relationship to other applicable laws even as court challenges to contraceptive coverage and other specific requirements are emerging. Businesses and other health plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, insurers and administrators, and other vendors must stay involved and alert. Zealously monitor new developments and share timely input with Congress and regulators about existing and emerging rules that present concerns and other opportunities for improvement even as you position to respond to these rules before they become fully implemented.

For Help or More Information

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

Comments Off on 12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now To Manage 2012-14 Health Plan Risks & Liabilities | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Plan Sponosr, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update